WPA/10155/2025 of SALIL KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY Vs THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. on 8 September 2026

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. A legal battle between the members of a family over the construction of a building inherited by them from their predecessor has led to the filing of the present writ petition. Prior thereto, three suits, one writ petition and two criminal cases had been instituted by one or the other of the parties against the others. The said writ petition has since been disposed of, whereas the three suits and the two criminal cases are still pending adjudication.

3. By preferring the present writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the private respondents have undertaken construction work on the portion of the building allotted to them by virtue of a deed of family settlement, on the basis of a sanctioned building plan obtained by making material misrepresentations and suppressing material facts. The petitioner has approached the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, “KMC”) by submitting several representations raising such allegations. However, according to the petitioner, despite receipt of such representations, the KMC has not taken any effective steps to address the grievances raised by the petitioner. This inaction has ultimately prompted the petitioner to prefer this writ petition seeking an appropriate writ and/or order directing the concerned respondents not to give effect of the building plan sanctioned in respect of the Premises No. 51B/1, Sarat Ghosh Garden Road, Kolkata – 700 031 being B.P. 2025100001 dated 2nd April, 2025. In addition, a further prayer was made for a direction upon the respondents to revoke and/or cancel the building plan.

4. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, referring to the sanctioned building plan appended to the Supplementary affidavit, submits that, the building plan was sanctioned on the basis of a declaration made by the applicant therein that no suits or proceedings are pending relating to the aforesaid premises in any court of law. Referring to an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), South 24-Parganas at Alipore in Title Suit No. 1838 of 2023, he further submits that in the aforesaid suit, which was instituted by the private respondents, the learned civil Judge passed an interim order directing both the parties thereto to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, character and activities as on that date in respect of that suit property. He also referred to the plaint of another suit registered as Title Suit No. 574 of 2024 and submits that the said suit was instituted by the petitioner seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the private respondents to resist them, inter alia, from making any construction at the premises and from creating any disturbance to the petitioner in his peaceful possession of the portion of the premises allotted to him, in terms of the family settlement executed by and between the parties.

5. Mr. Basu submits that on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Title Suit No. 574 of 2024, the learned court restrained the defendants, being the private respondents herein, from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, being the petitioner herein, from entering into the schedule property and from demolishing the rest portion of the western side boundary wall of the suit property without due course of law. He further submits that the petitioner also preferred a writ petition being WPA 10538 of 2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this court, by order dated 3rd September, 2024, recording an undertaking given on behalf of the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 therein, being the private respondents herein, that they would not undertake any construction work without any sanctioned plan from the KMC.

6. According to Mr. Basu, civil suits, relating to the selfsame premises, are pending and the interim order passed in these suits is still in operation. Despite this, in total disregard of the interim order passed in these suits, the private respondents are undertaking construction work on the basis of a sanctioned building plan, which was obtained by way of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. He submits that if the private respondents are allowed to continue with their construction work, the portion of the premises, which was allotted to the petitioner, will be badly damaged. He further submits that the KMC be directed to consider as to whether the sanctioned building plan was obtained by the private respondents by suppression of material facts or by way of misrepresentation of by making fraudulent statement, and that till that time, the private respondents be restrained from undertaking any construction work at the premises in question.

7. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Basu. He submits that from order dated 3rd September, 2024 passed in WPA 10538 of 2024, it would be evident that the demolition work was undertaken by the petitioner, after obtaining due permission from the KMC and thereafter observing all formalities including getting the building plan sanctioned from the KMC, the private respondents have undertaken construction on the portion of the premises allotted to them, without creating any disturbance to the peaceful possession of the portion of the premises allotted to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is opposing such construction under the apprehension that such construction may adversely affect and create damage to the portion of the premises presently occupied by him. He also submits that if the matter is relegated to the Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation with a direction to revisit the issue, the private respondents will have no objection to the same. However, he contends that if any order is passed restraining the private respondents from making any construction on that portion allotted to them, the private respondents will be highly prejudiced.

8. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, submits that, in terms of the legislative mandate embodied in Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short, “the 1980 Act”), the KMC is required to examine whether the sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished by the applicant. He further submits that there may be instances where certain information has been suppressed or misrepresented. However, every such suppression or misrepresentation would not necessarily fall within the purview of Section 397 of the 1980 Act. He ultimately submits that, if the matter is relegated to the KMC for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of Section 397 of the 1980 Act are attracted in respect of the building plan sanctioned in favour of the private respondents herein, he will not stand in the way.

9. In response, Mr. Basu submits that the sanctioned building plan itself indicates that in order to get the said plan sanctioned, the private respondents gave a declaration that there is no encumbrance on the premises and there is no litigation pending in relation to the premises in any court of law. He further submits that this is an entire suppression of material facts.

10. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

11. Undisputedly, the provisions of Section 397 of the 1980 Act lays down that if the Municipal Commissioner is satisfied that the sanction or provisional sanction of a building plan was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or any fraudulent statement in the notice given or information furnished under Sections 393, 393A or Section 394 or Section 395, he may, by order in writing, cancel, for reason to be recorded such sanction or provisional sanction and any building or any work commenced or erected, executed shall be deemed to have been commenced, executed, erected without such sanction or shall be dealt with under the provision of this chapter. A duty was cast upon the Municipal Commissioner before taking any steps as per Section 397 of the 1980 Act, to give a reasonable opportunity to the person affected, to explain as to why the order should not be made.

12. The legislature has consciously used the terms “material misrepresentation” and fraudulent statement”. The term “misrepresentation” refers to a false statement of fact. This misrepresentation can occur either fraudulently, carelessly or innocently. If any statement is false and if that is made to induce another party to make a mistaken decision, the same is considered as misrepresentation. The term “material” has been used to narrow the scope of misrepresentation, which indicates that not every misrepresentation will constitute the ground to take action under Section 397 of the 1980 Act. Only those misrepresentations, which significantly affect the subject matter and induce the decision-maker to take a decision, shall be acknowledged and acted upon.

13. The maxim “supressio veri, expressio falsi” means that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood. The term “suppressio veri” refers to withholding of information. It is important to note that when any person makes any application for obtaining any order or any sanction from any

authority, the said person is obligated to furnish certain information on the basis of which the authority, having power to pass such order or grant such sanction proceed, and if any such information is withheld or any false impression is given, then the said person can be stated to have suppressed the fact and has made fraudulent statement.

14. The fact remains that relating to selfsame premises three suits are still pending and two courts have passed an interim order directing to do or not to do certain act. I have been informed that two criminal cases are also pending. However, it has been alleged that suppressing this fact, the sanctioned building plan was obtained by the private respondents herein, on the basis of which they are undertaking the construction.

15. In the present case, whether the suppression of the factum of pendency of suits before the competent court of law, or the existence of any interim order directing the parties to do or refrain from doing certain acts, would constitute a material misrepresentation, or whether a statement that no litigation is pending would amount to a fraudulent statement, are matters which shall be considered by the Municipal Commissionerwhile deciding the representation of the petitioner. I refrain from expressing any opinion on these issues at this stage, as any observation in that regard may have the effect of influencing the decision to be taken by the Municipal Commissioner.

16. In view thereof, and having regard to the stand taken by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation ventilating his grievances within seven days from date. In the event such representation is received by the

Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, or any officer authorised by him, the same shall be considered and disposed of either by the Commissioner himself or by any officer deputed by him, by passing a reasoned order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents herein. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner. Till that time, the private respondents are restrained from making any construction or further construction in any form or manner whatsoever on the premises in question.

17. It is made clear that while undertaking such exercise, the KMC shall confine itself strictly to the aspects falling within its municipal jurisdiction and shall not enter into or adjudicate upon any question relating to title, ownership, possession and co-share ship or any other civil rights of the parties and the matters which falls within the jurisdiction of the competent court to decide or are presently the subject matter of the present civil proceedings.

18. If upon such consideration, it is found that the petitioner’s claim has some substance, then appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law. Any action taken by the Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties raised in the pending suit.

19. With these observations and directions, WPA 10155 of 2025 is disposed of.

20. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)