Execution of Sanctioned Plan Challenged Pending Specific Performance Decree Must Await Outcome of Execution Proceedings

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking rejection of a building sanction plan (Plan No. 226 dated 30.10.2017) issued by the Ranaghat Municipality in favor of private respondent No. 7

The petitioner claims ownership of the subject property based on a registered agreement for sale dated April 13, 2011, and a subsequent decree for specific performance passed on August 3, 2013, in Title Suit No. 131 of 2011

After several revisional applications (C.O. 3835, 3836, and 3837 of 2016) regarding the extension of time to deposit consideration, the High Court permitted the deposit, and a title deed was executed

Upon gaining possession, the petitioner discovered an additional floor constructed by the private respondent, who claimed title via a 2012 sale deed

A previous writ petition (WPA 7739 of 2025) for demolition was dismissed as the court deemed the dispute civil in nature

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to cancel a sanctioned building plan while execution proceedings for a decree of specific performance regarding the same property are pending in Civil Court.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in discretionary writ jurisdiction when an alternative, effective remedy exists in civil law, particularly concerning the execution of decrees.

It implicitly relied on Sections 151, 148, and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the enforcement of decrees

Further, the court adhered to the principle of Res Judicata or judicial propriety, noting that a Coordinate Bench had previously characterized the dispute between the specific parties as "purely civil in nature"

The Court observed that while the petitioner holds a decree for specific performance, the execution of said decree is still pending before the Civil Court

Although the municipality and the private respondent are legally bound by Civil Court decrees, the court noted that the private respondent holds a registered sale deed from 2012 and that a partition suit is also pending

The Court reasoned that since a Coordinate Bench had already refused to entertain a demolition prayer on the grounds that the dispute was civil, it would be inappropriate to intervene now to cancel the building plan

The court determined that the Petitioner's rights are better protected and adjudicated within the ongoing execution proceedings rather than through a summary writ proceeding

The petition was disposed of without costs, reserving the petitioner's right to agitate their claims and seek appropriate orders from the Civil Court upon the conclusion or during the progress of the execution proceedings