MUKLAL SUKUL Vs. HOOGHLY CHINSURAH MUNICIPALITY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reasoned order dated December 1, 2017 is under challenge at the behest of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the municipality has found the petitioner guilty of suppression of material facts to have obtained a sanction thereby. The municipality has cancelled the plan sanctioned and has proposed to take consequential steps.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the sanction was granted on February 8, 2017. On that date, the petitioner was not guilty of suppression of any material fact. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. He submits that, none of the ingredients of such Section has been satisfied, in the facts of the present case, for the municipality to undertake the same, as sought to be done, in the impugned order. He submits that, the suit for partition stood decreed much prior to the date of sanction. One of the private respondents had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Such application was pending consideration and that, there was no stay granted in respect of the decree for partition. Therefore, the petitioner was not at fault in stating that there was a decree passed by the Civil Court. Moreover, the decree for partition is such that, the petitioner does not have access to the first floor. The construction undertaken by the petitioner is of emergent nature. The impugned order, therefore, should be set aside.

(3.) The municipality and the private respondent are represented.