Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 19898 of 2026 Gopinath Ganguly Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Balailal Sahoo Mr. Kallol Kumar Maity For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha Mr. Shaunak Ghosh For the KMC : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey Ms. Gulnaz Quraishi For the respondent no.9: Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh Ms. Rimpy Mukherjee Heard on : 17.09.2026 Judgment on : 17.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Challenging the order dated 6th March, 2026, passed by the Special Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. To understand the challenge in the present writ petition, it would be necessary to note that the private respondent had previously 2 WPA 19898 of 2026 approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as WPA 23339 of 2025, challenging the notice issued under Section 53 of the West Bengal Town & Country (Planning Development) Act, 1979 and Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1993. 4. By the said notice it had been alleged that the certain development activities had been undertaken in respect of premises no. 132A/1, Ganapati Sur Sarani, involving illegally filling up of water body without obtaining prior permission from the municipality. The said notice further directed the petitioner to restore the land to its original condition, before the said development work took place, within a period of 30 days. 5. The above writ petition was, however, disposed of by an order dated 24th September, 2025, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by noting the submissions made by the petitioner therein that the said plot had never been recorded as any water body and the same was always recorded as land. A detailed reply had also been filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition, to the notice dated 9th September, 2025, following which the Court had directed the respondent authorities to consider the reply in response to the impugned notice dated 9th September, 2025, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks therefrom. In furtherance thereto, the present petitioner was duly provided with a 3 WPA 19898 of 2026 notice of hearing and was heard by the Special Municipal Commissioner. By the order impugned, the Special Municipal Commissioner has returned a finding that the plot in question was never recorded a tank/pond in any Government records nor in any municipal records. The order further went on to add that on the basis of the order passed by the office of the Thika Controller dated 16th November, 2015, the said land could not be treated to be a Thika land or pond. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, by drawing attention of this Court to the internal page 4, paragraph 3 of the order would submit that though it is recorded in the said order that as per the smart’s map record, there exists a tank such observation has been ignored by the Special Municipal Commissioner while passing the order. On the aforesaid aspect, I find that the observations made in paragraph 3 at page 4 are with regard to the submissions made by the petitioner herein. The factual finding returned by the Special Municipal Commissioner records that during site inspection in the year 2021 there was no trace of pond/tank. I find that the factual finding has already been returned by the Special Municipal Commissioner not only on the basis of inspection but also on the basis of the materials on record that the land in question was never recorded as a tank. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given appropriate hearing and was not heard. There appears to be, thus, no case of violation of the principles of natural justice. On the aspect of 4 WPA 19898 of 2026 perversity, I find there are enough materials to support the conclusion reached by the Special Municipal Commissioner. The said order cannot be said to be an order based on no evidence. The petitioner has also failed to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Special Municipal Commissioner. This Apart, the only other point raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was not a party to the previous writ petition, being WPA 23339 of 2025, in my view cannot render the proceeding bad, inasmuch as, the petitioner had duly accepted the said order and had participated in the hearing before the Special Municipal Commissioner. This apart, it is also necessary to record that the learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the schedule in an Act 39 case, being no.12 of 1986 filed before the District Delegate at Alipore, wherein a pond is indicated at premises no. 132A/1/H/3 South Sinthee Road, Kolkata. In my view the said document cannot be construed to be a document to establish existence of a pond. No record of rights has been disclosed to demonstrate the character of the land. 6. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)