Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Probhunath Prasad vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 727 of 2019
Probhunath Prasad
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Debapratim Guha,
Ms. Anchita Sarkar.
For the State/Opposite Parties : None
Heard on : 06.06.2023
Judgment on : 21.06.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of
proceedings being G.R. Case No. 1001/18 in connection with Pradhan
Nagar Police Station Case No. 193 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018 under
Sections 447/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 4D/49A of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act pending before the Learned Additional
2
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, Darjeeling against the petitioner in
connection with the aforesaid case.
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner has been arraigned as an
accused in the instant case being G.R. Case No. 1001/18 in connection
with Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 193 of 2018 dated
17.04.2018 under Sections 447/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and
Sections 4D/49A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which was
registered for investigation on the basis of a written complaint lodged by
the complainant namely Dipankar Mandal, Assistant Engineer, Siliguri
N.H. Sub Division - 1, Matigara, Siliguri.
3. The allegations in the First Information Report were inter alia as
follows:-
"..........that while inspection of NH 31 the complainant
has noticed some unauthorized occupation and construction was
going on within the Right of Way of the left side of NH 31 from
574 kmp (Siliguri Regulated Market) to 574.350 Kmp
(Champasari More); that the said construction needs to be
prevented as early as possible as there will be widening of road
pavement of NH 31 at an early date. The Government boundary
land has been demarcated by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O.........."
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the instant case.
5. A notice under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was
issued upon one Late Bhuichal Singh @ Bhuchal Singh son of Ghuguri
Singh and others in Misc. Petition Case No. 10/18 wherein it was
3
specifically stated that RS Plot No. 522 which is 3.19 acres in area,
belongs to him regarding encroachment and construction on Government
land, and vide order dated 16.04.2018 proceeding was started against
unidentified persons under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C. by the SDM, Siliguri.
6. In the month of May, 2018, son of the said Late Bhuichal Singh @
Bhuchal Singh namely Biswanath Singha @ Singh filed an application
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia claiming on the
basis of the Record of Rights that the disputed property belongs to his
father namely Bhuichal Singh @ Bhuchal Singh and he was holding the
status of Raiyat in respect of such land. After the demise of his father,
the said Biswanath Singha @ Singh built certain shop rooms on the said
land wherein he has been conducting his business.
7. The petitioner states that from the averments and the annexure to the
said writ petition being W.P. No. 5798(W) of 2018, it is quite clear that
the disputed land may be a private property and illegal construction if
any has been made by the owner or his legal heirs and the petitioner has
got no role to play.
8. After admission of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent no. 9 in
the said writ petition being the Head Assistant of Siliguri Regulated
Market Committee filed an affidavit in opposition wherein it was stated
that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in the writ petition
had already received rent compensation, acquisition compensation
as well as interest.
9. Mr. Debapratim Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the instant proceeding is an instrument of harassment
and oppression and in the interests of justice the same is liable to be
quashed. The continuation of the impugned proceedings shall amount to
an abuse of the process of the Court and it is expedient in the interest of
justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed and/or set aside in
order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice.
10. None appears for the State/Opposite Parties, in spite of due
service.
11. The present revision arises out of a complaint filed by Assistant
Engineer, Siliguri N.H. Sub Division - 1, alleging unauthorized
occupation and construction of on Government land. A specific case has
been registered as Pradhan Nagar P.S. Case No. 193 of 2018 under
Sections 447/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Sections 4D/49A of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
12. From paragraph 11 of the revisional application it appears that in the
writ petition the respondent no. 9 therein being the Head Assistant of
Siliguri Regulated Market Committee filed an affidavit-in-opposition
where it was stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in
the writ petition had already received rent compensation, acquisition
compensation as well as interest.
13. Section 6 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
provides:-
"6. Saving.- The provisions of this Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any
other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained in
this Act shall exempt any person from any proceeding (whether
by way of investigation or otherwise) which might apart from
this Act, be instituted or taken against him."
14. It is the contention of the petitioner that the disputed land is not in
his name and that he has not been named in the FIR, which has been
registered against unknown persons.
15. The case relates to unauthorized occupation and construction on
Government land. The local (Govt.) authorities have initiated the
proceedings which if interfered with would clearly amount to an abuse of
the process of law/Court. The involvement of persons concerned
(presently unknown) is the subject to investigation and matter of trial.
16. The revisional application being CRR 727 of 2019 is thus
dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
18. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for
necessary compliance.
21. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
