Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 41559 (CAL)

DR R THULASIDASAN v. M SETHU AND ORS

RVW/15/2026 · 2026-09-18

Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Shampa Sarkar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

18.09.2026 SL No.1 Court No.12 (cp) RVW 15 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 In MAT 82 of 2026 Dr. R. Thulasidasan Vs. Shri M. Sethu & Ors. (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) Mr. Surajit Samanta Mr. Balai Lal Sahoo Ms. Sohini Samanta … for the applicant. Mr. Arul Prasanth Ms. Dolly Saha … for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Rakesh Kumar …for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 1. By filing the review application, Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the applicant, questions the findings of the court in paragraph 28 of the judgment dated 28.08.2026 and submits that the ultimate direction is contrary to such finding. Hence, the review. 2. The findings at paragraph 28 are observations of the court and not error apparent on the face of record, which justifies the filing of the review application. In paragraph 28, the prayer of the appellant for regularization of the building was being considered and dealt with. 3. While doing so, the Bench had held that when the authorities did not find any reason to regularize the unauthorized structure, granting a direction for regularization by a judicial order, was not permissible in law. 2 4. In paragraph 38, the Bench passed a direction for demolition, subject to the consideration of the modified scheme which had been produced before us by the authorities. 5. A judgment cannot be read like a statute. Paragraph 28 deals with the power of the court to regularize. The ultimate decision had been left to the authority. We simply directed demolition, upon taking into consideration the modified scheme. 6. We clarify that the authority will demolish the structure after giving the benefit of the scheme, in the event any part of such structure can be preserved/regularized under the scheme. If not, the entire structure will be demolished. 7. We do not find that the respondents harboured any misunderstanding with regard to our direction, but the review application has been filed on an apprehension. 8. The review application is disposed of accordingly. The connected application is also disposed of. 9. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)