Keya Dey v. Chariman / Acting Chairman / Mayor / Acting Mayor Of Durgapur Municipal Corporation And ORS

22.06.2026 Ct. 3 Item No.

AD 89 Saswata WPA 13242 of 2026 Dr. Keya Dey

Versus

Chairman / Acting Chairman / Mayor & Ors.

Dr. Keya Dey

...Petitioner - in - person

Ms. Priyanka Sen ...For the Durgapur Municipal Corporation

1. The petitioner has mentioned this matter and insists for taking up this matter out of turn. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up out of turn.

2. The petitioner claims that she has acquired interest at holding no. 13E/16, Milan Pally near Trimurti Mandir, Pin - 713204 (in short "the said property") on the strength of a will executed by her mother. No document has, however, been disclosed in the petition to demonstrate how the petitioner has acquired interest in the said property or how her mother had acquired interest. The petitioner, however, contends that the said property measures 3 kathas and 6 chitaks.

3. The petitioner complains that on 14th January, 2024 when the petitioner noticed that the adjacent plot being holding no. 13E/14 had increased the boundary towards the petitioner's land and had thereby, encroached upon the petitioner's land, the

petitioner tried to resist the same. Subsequently, the petitioner has made a compliant with the municipal authorities through electronic mail on 13th June 2026 at around 8.52 A.M. In such complaint it has been alleged that there has been unauthorized construction at premises nos. 13E/12 and 13E/18 to the extent that the same has encroached upon the petitioner's property by constructing the boundary wall and a drain. The encroachment is around 3 feet from the backside and 2 feet from the front. In support, photographs of the locale has been disclosed which show boundary wall with open drain.

4. In the complaint, the petitioner also did not disclose the particulars of the probate proceedings.

5. Having heard the petitioner in person and considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of a boundary wall and an open drain. Ordinarily, the same appears to be a private boundary dispute. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

7. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court's official website.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)