Smti. Urmila Adhikari v. The Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/159/2025 Smti. Urmila Adhikari Vs.

Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council and Another Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vishal Kumar Biswas ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent No.1 March 24, 2025 [AKB] Item No.3 1.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today would demonstrate that the petitioner has sent the copy of the writ petition to the private respondent on 20th March, 2025 through speed post. The private respondent is however, not represented in Court. However, considering the nature of relief sought for, the present writ petition is taken up for consideration.

2.

Both the petitioner and the private respondent are neighbors and are residing within Sri Vijaya Puram, Port Blair Tehsil. The petitioner claims to be a recorded tenant of a land bearing survey No. 2531/2/4 and 2531/2/6 measuring 0.0070 Hectares and 0.0192 Hectares respectively situated at South Point village under Sri Vijaya Puram (Port Blair) Tehsil, South Andaman District. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 is also a recorded tenant of the land bearing survey No. 2531/2/7 situated at South Point village under Sri Vijaya Puram (Port Blair) Tehsil,

South Andaman District. The petitioner claims that the respondent no. 2 had started construction upon his land as well as other lands situated adjacent to his land without obtaining any building plan from the respondent no. 1. Since, according to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 was attempting to occupy the adjacent land and since, the construction is in violation of the Municipal Law, the petitioner had made a representation alleging illegal construction by the respondent no. 2 with the respondent no. 1 on 13th of March, 2025. The petitioner seeks consideration of the aforesaid representation. 3.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 has placed before this Court a sanction building permit issued in favour of the respondent no. 2.

4.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the sanction building plan has already been granted in favour of respondent no. 2 and also noting that a representation has been made by the petitioner alleging illegal construction by deviation of sanction plan, I am of the view, it shall be prudent at this stage without going into the controversy involved, to direct the respondent no. 1 to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties including the respondent no. 2. 5.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition being WPA 159 of 2025 stands disposed of.

6.

It is expected that the respondent no. 1 shall dispose of the petitioner's representation within a reasonable period not later than six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

7.

It is also made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's case and the respondent No.1 shall decide the representation of the petitioner being uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)