Shri Samir Ranjan Barman v. The Agartala Municipal Corporation and Ors

Page 1 of 14

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.A. No.52 of 2025

Shri Samir Ranjan Barman, S/O. Late Sudhir Ranjan Barman, a resident of 38, Akhaura Road, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West T ripura, PIN-799001.

……… Appellant(s).

V E R S U S

1. The Agartala Municipal Corporation, Body Corporate created under Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 having its Head Office at City Centre Com plex, Paradise Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN- 799001, represented by the Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation.

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation, City Centre Complex, Paradise Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Di strict- West Tripura, PIN-799001.

3. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, City Centre Complex, Paradise Chowmohani, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Di strict- West Tripura, PIN-799001.

4. Smti. Bhabani Chakraborty @ Bhattacharjee, W/O. Late Dipankar Chakraborty, 38, Akhaura Road, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Di strict- West Tripura, PIN-799001.

………Respondent(s).

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Date of hearing : 12.02.2026.

Date of judgment : 10.03.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

Heard Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, counsel for the appellant, Mr.

Arijit Bhaumik, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Purusuttam Page 2 of 14

Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, counsel for the private respondent No.4.

2. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.13.02 .2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.67 of 2025.

3. The appellant is a resident of House No.38, Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura.

4. Adjacent to his residence, on the western side, the homestead o f respondent No.4 was situated.

5. According to the appellant, the respondent No.4 illegally and unauthorisedly constructed a three storied building without obtaining any permission in an unscientific manner and without any approval of the Agartala Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1).

6. He raised objection thereto through letter dt.09.01.2015 addressed to the Executive Officer, Central Zone of respondent No.1, who was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Commissioner, but no action was taken thereon.

7. Therefore, he sent a second letter on 06.05.2015 to respo ndent No.3 complaining of the deliberate inaction on the part of the A ssistant Commissioner.

8. According to him, the respondent No.3, instead of taki ng any action, told the Private Secretary of the appellant on 22.01.2014 t o settle the matter with respondent No.4 amicably and also that respondent N o.1 was trying to bring suitable changes in the Tripura Municipal Act,1994 ( for short ‘the Act”) and Rules to regularize such type of illegal construction like the one made by the respondent No.4.

Page 3 of 14

9. It appears that thereafter respondent No.3 issued to resp ondent No.4 a notice dt.11.05.2015 asking her to stop the constructi on work on the building under Section 135 of the Act and also to produce v alid permission, if any, pointing out that the appellant, who was the eastern s ide neighbour of the respondent No.4, had given a complaint regarding the illegal cons truction being carried out by her. The notice also mentioned that an inqui ry conducted revealed that the respondent No.4 constructed second floor, ext ended ground floor and first floor of the building without permission. The respondent No.4 was directed to appear before the respondent No.3 with all valid documents on 16.05.2015. Copy of the same was also endorsed to the appellant.

10. The appellant then wrote a letter on 14.05.2015 to the resp ondent No.3 pointing out that apart from the construction, there was also a septic tank erected illegally and the notice dt.11.05.2015 issued by the respon dent No.3 did not mention all the objections of the appellant.

11. However, the respondent No.4 did not turn up before the respondent No.3, but filed an application seeking 45 days ti me on the ground that certain documents were misplaced.

12. Time was then extended up to 26.05.2015 by respondent no.3 as a last chance as per an order sheet dt.16.05.2015.

13. But the respondent No.4, according to the appellant, continued to make illegal construction and so the appellant addressed anot her letter to respondent No.3 on 03.06.2015. Appellant also requested the res pondent No.3 in that letter to inspect the site, the disputed land, founda tion depth of the building and also the septic tank etc.

Page 4 of 14

The order dt.13.8.2015 of respondent No.3 under section 133 and 135 of the Act:

14. Thereafter, an order dt.13.08.2015 was issued by the respond ent No.3 stating that respondent No.4 failed to show any appr oved plan for the second floor of the building and that some deviations were done in the ground floor and the first floor of the building in violation of the Tripura Building Rules, 2004. The respondent No.3, therefore, passed the order und er Sections 133 and 135 of the Act directing the respondent No.4 to demo lish the entire construction of the second floor SP building as it was constructed without approved plan, and to further demolish the extended portion o f the ground floor and first floor building beyond the approved plan, an d to fix up necessary soak pit and other pipe in the septic tank to stop the nuisance within 30 days.

15. The respondent No.4 did not comply with the order of demo lition as directed in the order dt.13.08.2015 of respondent No.3.

16. The Appellant contends that he kept on writing lett ers to respondent No.3 to take action, but instead of taking any actio n, the respondent No.3 addressed a letter on 16.10.2015 to the Sub-Di visional Magistrate, Sadar, Agartala for demarcation of the boundary between the lands of the appellant and the respondent No.4, which accordi ng to the appellant was wholly unnecessary. Appellant alleges that this was done by the respondent No.3 to allow the respondent No.4 more time to enjoy and to complete the unfinished work of her building to the risk an d prejudice of the appellant.

17. Appellant then gave a letter on 13.07.2016 to respond ent No.3 and thereupon he received a copy of a letter from the Assistant Engi neer, Planning Division, Agartala Municipal Corporation dt.14.07.20 16 addressed Page 5 of 14

to respondent No.4 to the effect that a joint inspection team was constituted by the Corporation for necessary inspection of the foundation of th e existing building of the said respondent on 20.07.2016 at 12.30 p.m . The said letter also mentioned the names of five technical persons. The responden t No.4 was asked to be present with the original building plan and allied documents to make arrangements for the inspection. But even thereafter, nothin g happened and so the appellant got issued a legal notice on 08.02.201 7 upon respondent No.2 with a copy marked to respondent No.3, but even then they did not take any action.

WP(C) No.558 of 2017 and the order therein passed on 30.7.2018:

18. Appellant then filed WP(C) No.558 of 2017 to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized building of the respondent No.4 along with the septic tank forthwith and for other reliefs.

The Appeal of respondent no.4 and order dt.25.5.2018 therein:

19. In the meantime, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 133(3) of the Act before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Pr incipal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura challenging the order dt.13.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.3.

20. The Appellate Tribunal on 25.05.2018 set aside the ord er dt.13.08.2015 with the observation that there was a complaint and a counter complaint and so, a proper technical inspection needs be got co nducted and a fresh order be issued in the matter after proper opportunity.

The order dt.30.7.2018 in W.P.(C).No.558 of 2017:

21. In view of the said order of the Appellate Authority passed on 25.05.2018, the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.558 of 2017 was dispo sed of on 30.07.2018 stating that the Writ Petition had become infructuous, but the Page 6 of 14

appellant/petitioner can challenge the order dt.25.05.2018, if he so desires. But the Appellant did not question the same.

22. In spite of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 25.05.2018 containing directions for a technical inspectio n, no action was taken by off, though a representation dt.27.11.2019 was given by the appellant to the respondent No.3.

23. Appellant then approached the respondent No.2 on 12.1 0.2020 through a representation complaining of the inaction of the respondent No.3 to implement the order of the Appellate Authority for technical inspection.

24. The respondent No.3 then issued a notice to the appella nt and the respondent No.4 on 13.11.2020 asking them to appear on 24.11.2020.

25. On that date, the counsel for the appellant appeared befor e respondent No.3, but neither respondent No.4 nor her representative appeared.

26. The respondent No.3 then passed an order dt.24.11.2020 directing that a technical inspection team be formed to inspect the entire building of the appellant and the respondent No.4 and n amed the members of the technical team as well.

27. On 11.12.2020, he also issued a memo to a similar effect and directed the inspection report to be submitted within 30 (thirty) days.

28. But no inspection of the building of respondent No.4 was taken by the technical team till 16.03.2022 and so, the appell ant again made representations on 02.06.2022, 07.02.2023 and 18.12.2023.

WP(C) No.67 of 2025:

29. He then filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No.67 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs:- Page 7 of 14

" i. Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show cause why a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to complete th e proceedings by way of inspection as per Annexure- 20 with in a definite time frame;

ii. As to why the foundation of the building shall not b e ascertained to find as to whether the building of the respondent No.4 so constructed on the foundation was permissible, sa fe and in accordance with the permission given by the respondent No.1 and if not, pass appropriate order or direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized p art of the building of the said respondent as per the provisions o f Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 and Rules ibid;

iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof commending upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized of the respondent No.4 septic tank forthwith;

iv. Issue Writ in the light of the prayers made above and make the Rule absolute;

v. Any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court considers appropriate may kindly be passed;

vi. Cost of the petition may be allowed to the petitioner."

30. Before the learned single Judge, the counsel for the Agartala Municipal Corporation contended that the matter is pending before the official respondents and appellant cannot seek a Writ of mandamus; and tha t if advised, the appellant should approach the civil court fo r seeking appropriate relief if any easementary right is affected.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge dt.13.2.2025 in W.P (C0 No.67 of 2025:

31. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the Writ Petition at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition. He held that the ap pellant has an effective alternative remedy before the Civil Court, which can as wel l Page 8 of 14

appreciate the evidence and decide whether there was any authori zed or unauthorized construction and so, no direction can be issu ed to the respondents to proceed with the inspection team which had alrea dy been constituted. It was also held that the petitioner did n ot have any locus as his constitutional rights were not infringed and so he cannot mai ntain the Writ. It was observed that the filing of the Writ Petition was an arm twis ting method adopted by the appellant against his neighbour though ther e was no infringement of his legal right under the Constitution. Ap pellant/ petitioner was also blamed for laches and it was observed that it was a priv ate dispute and Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

The Writ Appeal:

32. Assailing the same, this Appeal was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the said Appeal.

33. Notice in the application was issued on 23.09.2025 to the respondent No.4.

34. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 engaged a counsel and after hearing both sides, the delay in filing the Writ Appeal was condoned.

35. The matter was heard on 11.02.2026. On that date, this Court directed the Corporation to inform as to whether technical inspection had been directed to be done in the order dt. 25.5.2018 and reiterated in the orders dt.

24.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 had been done or not between 2018 and 11.02.2026 of the construction allegedly made by the priv ate respondent and also the construction made by the petitioner and a direction was given to produce the technical inspection committee's report, if done and the matter was adjourned to 12.02.2026. On that day, counsel reported tha t no such inspection had been done pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority.

Page 9 of 14

36. Counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of t he learned Single Judge is erroneous and that the learned single Judge should have allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents N o. 1 to3 to carry out the technical inspection and that he ought to have held that the inaction of the said respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative o f Art.14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

37. Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. They did not dispute that there was inac tion on part of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in doing the technical inspection.

38. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the appellant and th e respondent No.4 as to the legality of the construction made by the respondent No.4 adjacent to the land of the appellant and the appellant had availed the statutory remedy under Section 130 by approaching the responden t No.3 and had secured an order on 13.08.2015 that the illegal cons truction made by the respondent No.4 be demolished. The said order is relatable to su b-section (1)

of Section 133 of the Act.

39. Under sub-section (3) of Section 133, an appeal was provided against such an order to the Municipal Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act, and the Appellate Authority was the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura.

40. This appeal was decided on 25.05.2018 setting aside the order dt.13.08.2015 of the respondent No.3 by directing a proper tech nical inspection as there was a complaint and a counter complaint and t o pass a fresh order in the matter. Thus, there was a remand of the matter to the respondent No.3 to get the technical inspection made.

Page 10 of 14

41. This order has attained finality and the respondent No.4 had not challenged it in any forum.

42. All that the appellant wants is implementation of the dire ction contained in the said order dt.25.5.2018. It is not denied that after the said order was passed, the petitioner/appellant had made multiple representations on 27.11.2019, 12.10.2020 and also a legal notice on 18.12 .2023; and the respondent No.3 had even issued notice herein on 13.11.2020 and passed an order on 24.11.2020 constituting the members of the technical team and again reiterated the same on 11.12.2020 and 16.03.2022.

43. No valid reason is offered by the counsel for the responden ts No.1 to 3 as to why the said technical inspection has not been done till date though 8(eight) years have elapsed since the passing of the said or der in spite of the appellant repeatedly requesting for enforcement of the same.

44. It appears that the respondents, who are statutory authorit ies, either colluded with respondent no.4 or on account of sheer neglig ence and did not obey the direction of the Appellate Authority under the Act to do what was necessary to address the grievance of the appellant.

45. In several judgments of the Supreme Court such as Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu 1 , M.I.Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu2 , Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India 3 and Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa 4, the lack of accountability of Municipal authorities in preventing illegal constructions has been highlighted and it has been held that officials who have connived with the persons making illegal constructions cannot be spared.

1 (2000) 7 SCC 425 para 37

2 (1999) 6 SCC 464

3 (2009) 15 SCC 705

4 (2004) 8 SCC 733 paras 20-26

Page 11 of 14

46. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, erred in observing that the construction made by the unofficial respond ent did not affect the rights of the appellant because no technical inspecti on was done when the matter had come before him to come to such a conclusion. Infac t the respondent no.4 had made similar complaint against the appellant too before the appellate authority. That was why the technical inspection was felt necessary by the appellate authority.

47. Also even when the construction was going on, complaints w ere made by the appellant to the respondent No.3 and the respond ent no.3 had held in his order dt.13.8.2015 had held that inspite of several opportunities, the respondent no.4 had not chosen to produce any approved plan f or the 2 nd floor of the building which was constructed. Even before the appe llate authority, it had been pointed out that there were serious deviations by res pondent no.4 from the approved plan.

48. When the statute itself has given the remedy in Sections 130 an d 133 to the appellant and he had availed the said remedy, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to say that the appellant had an efficaciou s remedy before the Civil Court.

49. Even if certain evidence is required to be appreciated, the technical knowledge about appreciation of the material, which bo th parties would place, was certainly available with the technical inspe ction team constituted by the respondent No.3 and it is not as if the officers of the technical team were in anyway disadvantaged in appreciating the same.

50. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in stating that there cannot be a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to proceed with the inspection Page 12 of 14

as directed in the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Appellate Authority under Section 133(3) of the Act.

51. The learned Single Judge is also not right in stating that the appellant had no locus and that his constitutional righ ts are not infringed and that he cannot maintain the Writ. The concept of locus standi in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction is very liberal and as a neighbor of respon dent no.4, he certainly has locus standi . Also his complaint was entertained and a statutory order was passed in his favour under sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Act, which no doubt came to be set aside by the Appellate Aut hority under sub- section (3) of Section 133 of the Act with a direction that a technical inspection be done to ascertain after giving opportunity to both sides.

52. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the Writ Pe tition is also barred by laches cannot also be sustained because in this case there are no laches on the part of the appellant in seeking to take actio n against the alleged illegal construction of respondent No.4 as already set o ut in the earlier part of this judgment by us.

53. Even if the dispute between the appellant and respondent n o.4 is a civil dispute, since under the Act such disputes are permitted to be resolved by invoking Sections 133-135 of the Act, and the remedy under the statute has been availed by the appellant, and the appellant is further s eeking to enforce the order of the Appellate Authority under the Act by appro aching this Court, it cannot be said as held by the learned single Judge that the appellant is trying to convert a purely civil dispute under the writ jurisdiction and that for a private dispute, this Court is being misused.

54. The official respondents are duty bound to comply wi th the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Appellate Authority under Section 133(3) of the Act and Page 13 of 14

it is permissible for this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus to them to implement it.

55. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the judgment dt.13.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.67 of 202 5 is set aside; the said Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents No.1 to 3 are forthwith directed to implement the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Municipal Appellate Tribunal and get conducted technical inspection after issuing notice to both parties; and then taken further action in accordance o f law to redress the grievance of the appellant.

56. This exercise of inspection and then passing of a fresh ord er by the respondent No.3 shall be completed within one month from today without fail.

57. The respondent No.1 shall also pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) to the appellant within 4(four) weeks f rom the date of receipt of copy of this order.

58. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondents No.1 to 3 in proceeding with the technical inspection as directed by the App ellate Authority constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 133 of the Act, the said Appellate Authority, i.e. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura is directed to cause inquiry into the cond uct of the persons holding the office of respondent No.3 from 25.05.2018 till date, identify the person/s responsible for such inaction and init iate disciplinary action against the said officer/s for such inaction if there i s evidence of either collusion with respondent no.4 or sheer negligence on their part.

59. Communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura.

Page 14 of 14

60. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)

Pulak

PULAK BANIK

Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK

Date: 2026.03.10 13:40:00

+05'30'