Rakhal Chandra Saha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5724 Cal

 22.11.2021
Court No. 19
Items 7 & 8
   CP
                                  WPA 17388 of 2021
                                       with
                                    CAN 1 of 2021
                                       with
                                   CAN 2 of 2021

                             Rakhal Chandra Saha & ors.
                                       Vs.
                              State of West Bengal & ors.

                                        with

                                   WPA 17743 of 2021

                             Manik Chandra Mondal & ors.
                                        Vs.
                              State of West Bengal & ors.


               Mr. Firdous Samim
               Ms. Gopa Biswas

                     ......for the petitioners in WPA 17388/2021
                               and for the respondents 9 to 15

in WPA 17743/2021.

Mr. P. Ghosh Mr. Sourav Guha

.....for the petitioners in WPA 17743/2021 and for the respondents 14, 15 & 16 in WPA 17388/ 2021.

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pranab Halder Mr. Somnath Naskar

.....for the State in WPA 17388/ 2021.

Mr. Manas Kundu Mr. Debabrata Mondal (2)

...for the State in WPA 17743/2021.

Mr. Sudarsan Roy

.....for the municipality in WPA 17388 / 2021.

Mr. Sandip Ghosh

...for the municipality in WPA 17743/2021

WPA 17388 of 2021

There is a conflict of opinions with regard to

the character of the land in question. The learned

advocate appearing for the North Dum Dum

Municipality (hereinafter referred to the

municipality), is of the opinion that the same is a

water body. The municipality required the petitioners

in WPA 17743 of 2021 to restore the water body

which the said petitioners failed to do. The

petitioners were also given notice to stop illegal

activities on such water body. It is submitted by the

municipality that the municipality had started

restoration of the said pond but due to the pandemic

situation, such restoration could not be completed.

The municipality prays for some time to complete the

restoration work.

On the contrary, the Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer has issued an order of conversion by

converting the usage of the land to bastu. Thus

according to the petitioners in WPA 17743 of 2021,

the municipality cannot have any further role to play

after such conversion has been permitted. It is

further submitted by the petitioners that on the one

hand, the municipality has issued a mutation order

which is under challenge before this court holding

that the land shall be mutated as a water body. On

the other hand, the assessment register has been

referred to, from which it appears that the tax has

been calculated by treating the said land as a shali

land.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the

municipality that such assessment register was only

prepared for the purpose of collection of tax and as

the land records reveal that the land is a shali land,

such classification was incorporated in the

assessment register. Although, the municipality

submits with conviction and responsibility that the

land is a water body and there is a small pond in the

area, yet the conversion of the same has been

allowed despite the prevailing law restricting filling

up of ponds and water bodies.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners

in WPA 17388 of 2021, submits that it is the

executive officer of the concerned municipality who is

the competent authority under the West Bengal

Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 to monitor, restore and

prevent filling up of such ponds. That the report of

the municipality would reveal that the competent

authority had arrived at a conclusion that the land

was a pond and had directed the petitioners in WPA

17743 of 2021 to restore the same.

WPA 17388 of 2021 is disposed of with liberty

to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by

the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer allowing

conversion, in accordance with law. The petitioners

in WPA 17388 of 2021 shall be at liberty to approach

the said authority with all the documents and the

report of the municipality in support of their

contention that the land was always a water body

and the order was passed without considering the

same. They are also at liberty to challenge the record

of rights and pray for correction of the same in

accordance with law.

If such challenges are made, the concerned

authorities shall act and proceed in accordance with

law and dispose of such challenges upon hearing all

the parties who are petitioners and respondents in

their respective writ petitions as also the competent

authority of the municipality.

With the disposal of the WPA 17388 of 2021,

connected applications thereto being CAN 1 of 2021

and CAN 2 of 2021 are also disposed of accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the server copy of this

order.

Photocopy of this judgment and order, duly

counter-singed by the Assistant Court Officer, shall

be retained with the records of WPA 17743 of 2021.

WPA 17743 of 2021

A challenge has been thrown to the mutation

granted by the municipality classifying the land as a

water body although in the assessment register the

land has been classified as shali land. This matter

has to be heard on affidavits as the competent

authority of the municipality has come to a specific

finding and has submitted a report before this court

that the land in question is a pond and was being

filled up since 2019 although, the conversion was

only allowed in 2021.

This court is of the opinion that till the

disposal of the writ petition, status quo shall be

maintained with regard to the pond in question.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four

weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within

two weeks thereafter.

List the writ petition on January 28, 2022 for

hearing.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)