Arun Kumar Dutta, J. - (1.) The petitioner, C.M.C. respondents and the Respondents Nos. 14 and 17 are represented by their respective Learned Advocates, who have been heard at length on the question of maintainability of the instant Writ Application.
(2.) By this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Petitioner (hereinafter referred to a petitioner) has prayed the Court for a declaration that the Building Plan, being B.P. No. 17 (B -15) dated 7.9.94, and any other revised Plan thereto is bad, illegal and inoperative as also praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 10 not to allow the Respondents No. 12 to 19 and their men and their men and agents to make any construction or further construction on plot No. 278 Khaitan No. 132 sheet No. 60, Mouza Garden reach, P.S. Metiabruz, Calcutta - 18 pursuant to the said building plan No. 17 (B-15) dated 7th September, 1994", further commanding them (Respondents. No. 1 - 10) to act in accordance with law, along with other reliefs prayed for therein for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.
(3.) The Petitioner claims his right, title and interest in the (sic) Plot No. 278 on the basis of an Agreement for sale entered into by and between himself and the Bengal Bus Syndicate in the year 1969. He was put in possession of the said plot in pursuance of the said Agreement. He had subsequently filed a Suit for Specific Performance of Contract in the 3rd Court of the Assistant District Judge of 24-Parganas at Alipore, being Title Suit No. 12 of 1993. The Application for temporary injunction filed by him in the said Suit, his prayer for interim injunction having been rejected, he had preferred Appeal there against before the District Judge of 24-parganas, who by his Order dated 21/9/95 had directed the parties therein to maintain Status quo till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction filed by him, with a further direction upon the Trial Court to dispose of the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction expeditiously. On an Application filed by him before an Executive Magistrate under Section 144, Cr. P.C., the Learned Magistrate by an Order dated 12.6.95 had as well directed the Parties to maintain Status quo in respect of the disputed property. The Order of the Learned Magistrate has lost its force by efflux of time.;