Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prithish Ranjan Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 September, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No. 9
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
MAT 1506 of 2024
CAN 2 of 2024
Prithish Ranjan Mondal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Kushal Chatterjee
Ms. Oishik Chatterjee
For the State : Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy
Mr. Biswajit Das
For respondent nos. 2 & 5 : Mr. Koushik Roy
For respondent no. 10 : Mr. Arijit Chatterjee
Mr. Kalidas Saha
Mr. Abhik Sarkar
Mr. Sanjib Adhikary
Ms. Susmita Mukherjee
Ms. Mandira Mandal
Ms. Khushi Mollick
Heard on : 28.8.2024, 11.9.2024 & 20.9.2024
Judgment on : 20.09.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-
1. By registered sale deed dated 8th June 1988, vendor of the
appellant had purchased the land. In the recitals of the sale deed it
is recorded prior to 1976 the vendor had made construction on the
land and was residing therein. Schedule to the deed also refers to
building with privy on the land. In 2015 the land was gifted to the
appellant. A copy of the deed is placed on record. We have also
perused the report of the State in response to the certificate of
mutation issued by the Revenue Officer describing the land as
'bastu'. In the report it is admitted memo no. 27 dated 1.4.2022
had been issued by the Revenue Officer but it was not addressed to
the appellant. Be that as it may, contents of the memo i.e.
classifying the land as 'bastu' has not been disputed. It has further
been clarified in the said report revision of record of rights with
regard to the plot is in progress. The classification of the report
during successive stages of preparation of revenue records is set
out :-
During RS Operation During LR Operation
RS Finally Class Rema LR Provisio Classifi Remarks
plot published ificat rks (if Plot nal cation (if any) in
No. RS ion any) No. Khatian Record of
Khatian in No. (at Rights
No. Recor
LR KB-
d of
Attestati
Rights
on stage)
653 1345 Pukur Nil 1131 2787 Pukur/ Sec 4(C)
Bastu applicable
(Annexure-III) (Annexure-IV)
2. Though draft record of rights has been published the matter is
pending at attestation stage and final record is yet to be published.
3. Chapter III of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual 1991
lays down the procedure for revision of record of rights in land.
4. Rule 30, inter alia, provides preparation and revision of record of
rights in land under chapter VII of West Bengal Land Reforms Act,
1955 may be carried out in a district or in a part thereof if the
government has reason to believe that record of rights in land have
become out of date or there has been intensive change in the
topography or due to enactment of new law.
5. Recitals in the deed submitted by the appellant gives an impression
the structures had come up on the plot in question prior to 1976.
Though such recitals may not be conclusive, they may form
materials to give rise to reasonable belief with regard to change in
topography of the plot necessitating revision of record of rights. In
fact, revision has already been undertaken and the draft record of
rights classifies the plot as 'pukur/bastu'. The matter is pending at
the attestation stage.
6. By the impugned order, District Magistrate was directed to take
steps to restore the water body. Hon'ble Single Judge failed to
consider the draft record of rights and classified the plot as
'pukur/bastu'. Recitals in the chain deed had also not been placed
before the Single Bench.
7. In such view of the matter we give liberty to the parties to place on
record relevant materials before the District Magistrate. The District
Magistrate shall after taking into consideration the said materials,
hearing the parties and upon consultation with the department of
fisheries pass appropriate order in terms of section 4C(5) of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 with regard to restoration of
the water body within two months of communication of the order.
Till decision is taken, there shall be an order of status quo as on
date with regard to nature and character of the plot in question.
8. We note the temporary structure has already been demolished. This
order shall not create any right in favour of the appellant to re-erect
the structure save and except in accordance with law.
9. Copy of the order shall be communicated to the respondent within
one week thereof.
10. With these directions appeal is disposed of.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of judgment, order if applied for be
given to the parties on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
tkm
