Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner has challenged an order dated 28th June, 2018 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The respondent No.1 is Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality and respondent No.2 is its Administrator. The respondent No.3 is the owner of an adjacent premises to that of the appellant/writ petitioner.
(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner says that the premises of the respondent No.3 is on the western side of the premises of the appellant/writ petitioner. The premises of the appellant/writ petitioner's mother is on the northern side of the premises of the appellant/writ petitioner. The premises of the appellant/writ petitioner and that of her mother shares the entire common boundary on their western side with the premises of the respondent no.3 that is to say the premises of the appellant/writ petitioner partly shares a common boundary with the premises of the respondent No.3 on its western side.
(3.) The appellant/writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP 22554(W) of 2010 (Suparna Bhattacharya Vs. Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality & Ors.) complaining of the illegal construction said to have been made by the respondent No.3 at his premises in the nature of not leaving mandatory side open spaces, raising a floor without sanction plan and the failure on the part of the Municipality to prevent such illegal and unauthorised construction. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 25th June, 2014 with liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to move a fresh on the self-same cause of action after making a fresh representation. Subsequently another writ petition was filed by the appellant / writ petitioner being WP No.25137(W) of 2014 (Suparna Bhattacharya Vs. Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality & Ors.) pursuant to the earlier leave. The second writ petition was disposed of by an order on 4th September, 2014 directing the competent authority of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality to dispose of a representation made by the appellant/writ petitioner on June 26, 2014 within a period of one month after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 or their respective representatives. It will also appear from the said order that the appellant/writ petitioner had filed a civil suit being suit No.161 of 2012 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur in which an order of status quo was passed. The relevant portion of the order dated 4th September, 2014, is reproduced hereunder:- "It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, on instruction that a Civil Suit bearing Suit No.161 of 2012 is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 2nd Court at Baruipur. On instruction, it is further submitted that in view of the order of status quo, no further construction is raised by the respondent no.3 in the above premises.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the above Suit relates to right and title of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 in respect of the plot of land lying and situated at R.S. Dag No.159, J.L. No.48, Mouza - Kumrakhali, District - South 24-Parganas.The subject matter involved in this writ application is to take necessary steps for restraining the respondent no.3 to raise construction on the above plot of land violating the rights of the petitioner in respect of his adjacent Premises No.1618, Dakshin Kumrakhali, Ward No.27 under the respondent no.1 in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Building Rules 2007. Therefore, the issue involved in this writ application does not relate to the subject matter involved in the above suit.I direct the competent authority of the respondent no.1 to dispose of the above representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.3 or their respective representatives.Let it be made clear that the respondent authority shall not pass any order affecting the issues involved in the above Title Suit No.161 of 2012, which is still pending".;