Calcutta High Court
RVW/15/2026 of DR R THULASIDASAN Vs M SETHU AND ORS on 18 September 2026
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
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.
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. 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.)