Pinaki Roy & Anr vs Samir Bhandary on 3 July, 2026

    0
    8
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

    Pinaki Roy & Anr vs Samir Bhandary on 3 July, 2026

    Author: Debangsu Basak

    Bench: Debangsu Basak

    03.07.2026
    Item No.3
                                      In The High Court at Calcutta
    Court No.37                               Special Civil Jurisdiction
    CHC                                            Appellate Side
    (Rule
    Drawn      in     in
    separate sheet)
    
    
                                            CPAN 652 of 2019
                                           IA NO: CAN/1/2024
                                            Pinaki Roy & Anr.
                                                   Vs.
                             Samir Bhandary, The Present Chairman, Arambagh
                                           Municipality & Anr.
                                                    in
                                           WPA 25330 of 2018
    
                            Mr. Malay Bhattacharya, Advocate
                            Mr. Madan Mohan Roy, Advocate
                            Mr. Hari Pada Nayak, Advocate
                            Mr. Subhrajoti Ghosh, Advocate, Advocate
                                                     ...for the petitioners
    
                            Mr. Souhardya Mitra, Advocate
                                               ...for the Arambagh Municipality
    
                                       .
    

    1. Petitioners complain of violation of the order dated

    February 1, 2019 passed in WP 25330(W) of 2018.

    SPONSORED

    2. By such order, noting the rival contentions and the

    report submitted, the Court arrived at a finding that,

    there were unauthorized constructions on the land.

    Removal of unauthorized constructions were directed.

    3. After the contempt petition was filed, several

    opportunities were granted to the contemnors to

    comply with the order dated February 1, 2019.

    4. Affidavits directions were given on June 12, 2026.

    5. Contemnors chose not to file any affidavit to the

    contempt petition.

    2

    6. Today learned advocate for the alleged contemnors

    submits that, a further demarcation was undertaken

    whereupon it was found that, no encroachment exist.

    7. After the Court’s finding contained in the order dated

    February 1, 2019 and after the parties not carrying

    any appeal therefrom, such order and the findings

    recorded therein are binding upon the parties.

    8. The so-called subsequent demarcation is of no

    consequence.

    9. Since, the alleged contemnors persist in violating the

    order dated February 1, 2019, let a Rule be issued

    against the respondents.

    10. In view of the conduct of the respondents, it would be

    appropriate to direct each of the respondents to be

    personally present on July 17, 2026, if the order

    remains uncomplied with in the meantime.

    (Debangsu Basak, J.)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here