S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) The writ application filed by the appellant herein praying for the following reliefs: "(a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent authorities and their servants, subordinates and agents:- (i) Not to consider the application of late Jitendra Nath Roy and/or the respondents No. 5 to 9 for sanction to construct 2nd and 3rd floor on premises No. P-105, Block-D, Bangur Avenue, Calcutta without (the consent and/or without removing) the objection of the petitioner. (ii) To recall and/or cancel and/or rescind and/or the order of quash purported sanctioned dated 20.4.95 or any other date granted by the respondent authorities being respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the construction of any additional floor on the existing structure of the premises No. P-105, Block-D, Bangur Avenue, Calcutta. (iii) To recall and/or cancel and/or rescind and/or quash the said illegal purported completion certificate dated 9.4.98 being annexure D herein. (iv) To consider the objection of the petitioner as narrated in the petition by giving a personal hearing in accordance with the principle natural justice. (v) To act in accordance with rule; (vi) (b) A writ of prohibition directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and each one of them, their subordinates and agents from granting any sanction for construction in premises No. 105, Block-D, Bangur Avenue, Calcutta, and in case such sanction has been granted, not to give effect to and/or further effect to the same and restrain the respondents 5 to 9 proceeding with the construction in premises No. 105, Block-D, Bangur Avenue, Calcutta and post guard to ensure no further construction is undertaken or taking any steps pursuant to such purported sanction." was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 4th April, 2000 stating:- "The writ petitioners complains against proposals to construct the second and third floors at the site where she is the owner of the ground floor. Points are taken that as part owner of the land she has not given her consent for construction; further the completion certificate was issued in 1998 to a dead person Jitendra Nath Roy. In the second Schedule of the conveyance given in favour of the writ petitioner is a mention that construction of the second and third floor would be made. Whether there is load bearing capacity of the building or not, whether there should be construction or not, whether the plan for such construction should be sanctioned or not, these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily without entering into details of facts. The suit Court is the appropriate Court for such factual details. It is also quite competent to stop the alleged illegalities complained of the without entering into merits the writ application is summarily rejected."
(2.) Having regard to the fact that this Court found that a prima facie case was made out for hearing, the learned counsel for both the parties requested that the writ application itself be heard by this Bench. In this view of the matter the impugned order should be deemed to have been set aside.
(3.) That the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Jitendra Nath Roy was the owner of Plot No. P-105, Block-D, Bangur Avenue is not in dispute. He constructed two flats on the ground floor as also made some constructions on the first floor.;