Relitigation of an unauthorized-construction claim after an unchallenged reasoned determination constitutes abuse of process.

The petitioner alleged that Fortis Hospital, The Calcutta International School, Gyananidhi Trust and M/s. Artistery Properties Pvt. Ltd. had raised illegal and unauthorised constructions over land situated at Mouza Nonadanga, including Dag No. 582 under Khatian No. 339, Ward No. 108, Borough-XII of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”).

The petitioner had earlier filed WPA 11181 of 2022, which was dismissed on 22 November 2022 because the allegations of unauthorised construction were unsupported by documentary evidence; liberty was granted to approach the appropriate forum if competent authorities subsequently confirmed that construction had been made without a sanctioned plan or in deviation thereof.

A subsequent writ petition, WPA 5082 of 2023, was dismissed, but the appellate Division Bench in MAT 704 of 2023 permitted the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the Executive Engineer, Building Department, KMC.

Pursuant to that liberty, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10 May 2023. After hearings on 21 July and 31 August 2023, the KMC passed a reasoned order dated 12 September 2023, finding that no unauthorised construction existed on the relevant plot. That order was not challenged.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner relied on further representations dated 25 May 2026 and 8 June 2026, while declining to disclose the earlier representation dated 10 May 2023 when specifically asked to do so.

The petitioner also filed CAN 2 of 2026 seeking a direction to the BL&LRO to inspect and prepare a sketch map concerning Dag Nos. 582, 525 and 525/570. An appeal concerning the same land was pending before the West Bengal Land Reform and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 745 of 2026.

Whether the petitioner could maintain another writ petition concerning the alleged unauthorised construction after availing the liberty granted in the earlier appellate proceedings and without challenging the KMC’s reasoned order dated 12 September 2023?

Whether the present writ petition constituted an abuse of the process of the Court by seeking to reopen the same dispute through subsequent representations and proceedings?

Whether the High Court should direct the BL&LRO to inspect and prepare a sketch map when the same subject matter was pending before the West Bengal Land Reform and Tenancy Tribunal?

The Court applied the principles of finality of prior judicial and administrative determinations, abuse of the process of Court, and the rule that a litigant cannot repeatedly reopen the same cause after availing an expressly granted remedy.

The Division Bench’s order in MAT 704 of 2023 required the petitioner to pursue the comprehensive representation before the Executive Engineer, who was to decide the complaint in accordance with law and applicable municipal rules after hearing all concerned parties.

Once that process culminated in the KMC’s reasoned order, the petitioner was required to challenge that order, if aggrieved, rather than initiate fresh proceedings on the same grievance.

The Court also applied the principle that it should not adjudicate issues already pending before a specialised statutory tribunal, namely the West Bengal Land Reform and Tenancy Tribunal.

The Court found that the petitioner had already exercised the liberty granted by the Division Bench by filing a comprehensive representation before the KMC.

The representation was considered after hearings and resulted in a reasoned order stating that no unauthorised construction had been found; the petitioner never challenged that order.

The petitioner’s attempt to distinguish the present proceeding by referring specifically to Dag No. 582 was rejected because the earlier appellate directions had themselves concerned the relevant property and nature of construction.

The petitioner’s refusal to disclose the 10 May 2023 representation further demonstrated an attempt to reopen the earlier controversy through new representations rather than pursue the available legal challenge to the KMC’s decision.

The Court therefore characterised the proceeding as an abuse of process.

As to CAN 2, the Court declined to issue directions because the land-identification and survey dispute was already pending before the WBLRTT.

The writ petition was dismissed as an abuse of the process of Court, with costs of ₹5,000 payable by the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.

CAN 1 of 2026, filed by respondent no. 12 for dismissal of the writ petition, was disposed of as infructuous.

CAN 2 of 2026 was also dismissed because the relevant issue was pending before the WBLRTT in OA No. 745 of 2026.