Sri Subhankar Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Joyee Maiti Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. S. Chatterjee, Ms. Riya Kundu … for the respondent nos. 12 and 13. ..for the State. Mr. Subrata Kumar Singh … for the respondent nos. 14 to 16.

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated

07.03.2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. By the said order the Court refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that a water body at L. R. Plot No. 835 Mouza-Unsani, P. S.- Jagacha, District- Howrah has been wrongfully described in the record of rights as “Bastu” land. Certain photographs have been placed before this Court.

The Single Bench was of the view that there was sufficient materials before the Court to hold that the plot-in-question is actually a water body within the 2 meaning of Section 17(A)(1) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and material on record, this Court is of the view that the matter cannot be decided on affidavit evidence by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner may seek statutory or other civil remedies as may be available in accordance with law to establish his claim in respect of the plot-in-question.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Bench shall stand modified accordingly.

FMA 651 of 2025 shall stand disposed of. Consequently, connected pending application is also disposed of.

Since no affidavit has been used by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted by any of the respondents.

All issues are kept open to be raised and decided before appropriate court.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 3