SANAT BANERJEE Vs. TAKI MUNICIPALITY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The affidavit of service, showing service on the respondents, is taken on record. Despite service none appears for any of the respondents. Therefore, I treat the writ petition as ready as regards service.

(2.) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Taki municipal authorities are carrying on constructions on the land belongs to the petitioner by way of intestate succession. Such constructions have been made, he says, without any consent being taken from him and without any lawful proceedings for acquisition of the land or its user whether by way of expropriation or otherwise. In support of his contention he has disclosed a registered kobala as also record of rights showing that the land in question was recorded in the name of his father, since deceased, as a raiyat. He submits that when the writ petition was instituted at that time such unauthorised constructions were apprehended, but that during the last three years of pendency of the writ petition the municipality has constructed fencing around the land of the petitioner. He also submits that the matter could not be taken up due to the business of the court.

(3.) The law is well settled that Actus Curiae Neminens Gravabit (the act of court showing prejudice in party litigant). A strong prima facie case has been made out for attempt to deprivation of a citizen's right to shelter and his property without following procedure established by law and/or due process by a municipality within the meaning of Article 243B(E) and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. The preponderance of balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the petitioner and the orders prayed for being passed.