Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43689 (CAL)

MISS.AVA DIGAR v. MAHESHTALA MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.

WPA/26253/2025 · 2026-09-25

Sandip Kumar De

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L. 1. September 25, 2026. MNS. WPA No. 26253 of 2025 Miss. Ava Digar Vs. The Maheshtala Municipality and others Mr. Ramdulal Manna, Mrs. Manju Manna (Dey), Mr. Tapan Kumar Manna, Advs. … for the petitioner. Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Ms. Dipanwita Das, Advs. …for the Maheshtala Municipality. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record. 2. Despite service, none appears for the private respondents, although the petitioner and the authorities of Maheshtala Municipality are represented through counsel. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit and the same is taken on record. 4. From the supplementary affidavit, it appears that the authorities of Maheshtala Municipality by a disclosure of information dated June 2, 2025 has disclosed that no building plan has been sanctioned vide holding no. B3- 157/New but B-69/2 holding number is not traceable. 5. It further appears from page no. 117 of the writ petition that an order of injunction passed by the appropriate Civil Court to the extent restraining the defendants and their men and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession, use and occupation and/or taking 2 any forcible possession of “B” schedule property and/or converting “C” schedule property into common passage in any manner whatsoever, has been granted and the said injunction order is still subsisting. 6. Despite the order dated August 28, 2026, the Maheshtala Municipality has not filed the report in the form of affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the Maheshtala Municipality is present. 8. In the circumstances, WPA No. 26253 of 2025 is disposed of by directing the authorities of Maheshtala Municipality to consider and dispose of the representation dated March 28, 2025, being Annexure- P6 to the writ petition with regard to the allegation of unauthorized construction, upon granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the private respondents, and conclude such hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. Needless to mention that the authorities of Maheshtala Municipality shall pass a reasoned order within a period of one week thereafter from the date of conclusion of the hearing. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sandip Kumar De, J.)