Calcutta High Court
CPAN/1120/2024 of KARTIK CHANDRA DAS Vs NEMAI CHANDRA GHOSH CHAIRMAN MADHAYMGRAM MUNICIPALITY AND ORS on 17 September 2026
Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CPAN 1120 of 2024 In WPA 20587 of 2023 Kartik Chandra Das Vs. Nemai Chandra Ghosh & Ors. Mr. Debabrata Mondal Mr. Kisor Sk Mr. Sayed Hossain … for the Petitioner. Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami Mr. Parikshit Goswami
S/L 24
17.09.2026
Court No.24
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CPAN 1120 of 2024
In
WPA 20587 of 2023
Kartik Chandra Das
Vs.
Nemai Chandra Ghosh & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Mondal
Mr. Kisor Sk
Mr. Sayed Hossain
… for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami
Mr. Parikshit Goswami
… for the Contemnors.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition was of an unauthorized construction by the private respondent over the petitioner’s plot of land.
2. In compliance of the direction passed by the Court, the Municipality enquired into the matter and failed to identify the plot of land where the alleged unauthorised construction had been made. The Municipality took the help of the land authority for identifying the plot of land.
3. The Revenue Officer, Barasat-II, Madhyamgram Municipality has forwarded the report to the BL&LRO dated May 13, 2026 wherefrom it appears that a spot inspection was conducted to identify the plot of land. It was found that the petitioner did not possess any land over which the unauthorized construction has been alleged to be made. The said plot of land is occupied by third parties.
2
4. From the report of the land authority, it appears that a dispute has cropped up with regard to proper identification of the plot where the construction is alleged to be made. The spot inspection report of the authority suggests that the petitioner is not in possession of the land over which he claims ownership.
5. As the petitioner is not in possession, the allegation of the petitioner that construction has been made by the private respondent over his plot of land cannot be properly ascertained and adjudicated by the Municipality.
6. There are several disputed question of facts have been cropped up. It will not be proper for this Court to enter into and adjudicate any of such dispute.
7. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law, if so advised.
8. Contempt application stands disposed of.
9. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
10. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)