Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Hemanta Kumar Sarkar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 12 December, 2022
D/L
Item No. 14
12.12.2022
KOLE
MAT 1378 of 2022
With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2022
Hemanta Kumar Sarkar
-Vs.-
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Swarup Banerjee,
Mr. Sajal Kr. Ghosh,
Mr. Arindam Chatterjee,
... for the appellant.
Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly,
... for the UOI.
Mr. Chama Mookherji,
Mrs. Paramita Pal,
... for the State.
Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with
the records.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
application are taken up for hearing together.
A Judgment and order dated July 25, 2022, whereby
the appellant's writ petition being WPA 15307 of 2022 was
dismissed is assailed in this appeal.
The appellant had earlier approached this Court by
filing WPA 8525 of 2021, complaining that the concerned
Panchayat was constructing a road after demolishing a
portion of his property. The writ petition was disposed of by
an order dated December 3, 2021, whereby the Pradhan of
the concerned Gram Panchayat was directed to consider the
representation filed by the appellant/writ petitioner and pass
a reasoned order thereon. Accordingly, an order was passed
by the Pradhan on April 21, 2022. Being aggrieved with that
order, the present appellant approached the learned Single
Judge in this round of litigation.
The appellant submitted before the learned Single
Judge that the order was not a reasoned order. No sufficient
opportunity of hearing had been given to the appellant
before the order was passed.
The learned Judge upon considering the order, which
we have also considered, came to the conclusion and in our
view rightly, that the order is a reasoned order and has been
passed after observing the principles of natural justice.
Sufficient hearing was granted to the appellant. The order
was passed relying upon the report filed by the concerned
Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (in short "the BL &
LRO"). The report clearly stated that the road in question
has been constructed without touching the land of the
appellant. The learned Judge held that dispute with regard
to encroachment on the writ petitioner's land could not have
been effectively decided by the Pradhan, who rightly relied
upon the enquiry report, submitted by the BL & LRO.
The writ petitioner said that he had not been favoured
with a copy of the field enquiry report of the BL & LRO. The
learned Judge observed that it will be open for the writ
petitioner to apply for obtaining the field enquiry report
from the Pradhan and in the event such application is made,
the Pradhan shall act upon the same.
The appellant says that he has already applied to the
Pradhan for a copy of the field enquiry report on July 28,
2022. Such report has not yet been furnished to him. If that
be so, the appellant would be at liberty to take appropriate
action for violation of the learned Single Judge's order.
We do not see any apparent infirmity in the order
under appeal. The learned Judge has also granted liberty to
the appellant to challenge the field enquiry report before the
appropriate forum in the event the appellant is aggrieved by
the same.
The order under appeal does not warrant any
interference. There is no apparent illegality or procedural
impropriety in the order.
The appeal and the connected application,
accordingly, fail and are dismissed without any order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
