AGM/NB Ct. 24 v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AMRITA SINHA
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Amartya Basu. ..for the petitioner. Mr. Anand Farmania, Mr. Supriya Majumder. …for the State. Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury. …for the respondent nos.2&3. The writ petitioner submits that he is making construction over a plot of land recorded as ‘Bastu’ in the records maintained by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer after obtaining plan sanctioned from the Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality. Initially, a notice under Section 4C(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was issued to the vendor of the petitioner alleging illegal filling up of water body in respect of Plot No.388 corresponding to LR Plot No.804 of Mouja Dharampore. Later on, the said notice stood withdrawn by observing that the portion of the land which the petitioner has purchased is classified as ‘Bastu’ and, accordingly, the allegation of illegal filling up of the water body is not maintainable and the notice under Section 4C(5) stood withdrawn. 2 Presently, the Executive Officer of the Municipality being the competent authority under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 has issued another notice to the petitioner by mentioning that the petitioner has engaged himself in filling up of the water body. The impugned notice mentions that as per Section 17A(1B) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993, no person shall fill up any water area for construction of building thereon or for any other purpose. The petitioner has been directed to immediately stop filling up of the water body and restore the water body to its original state. The petitioner submits that the land over which the construction is being made is recorded as ‘Bastu’ and the petitioner is raising construction thereon in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Municipality. Accordingly, it is not proper for the Municipality to issue notice for restoration of the water body. It has been submitted that there is no question of restoring the water body as no water body exists over the place where the petitioner is raising construction. Learned advocate representing the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has produced a report before this Court signed on 22nd December, 2023 which mentions that total area of the subject plot is 0.578 acres out of which approximately 0.10 to
Operative part
0.11 acre is the water body and the rest is being used as road. Some two-three storied houses adjacent to the water body and some trees are seen. There is no sign of construction over the water body. 3 Learned advocate representing the Municipality submits, upon instruction that, there was a mass petition from the members of the locality. An inspection was conducted and it was found that the entire area is a water body. The submission of the learned advocate representing the petitioner and the documents available on record are at variance. Records reveal that the plot which the petitioner purchased is recorded as ‘Bastu’. The area in question is a big one. The portion which the petitioner purchased is not a water body. The submission of the petitioner is supported by the instruction forwarded by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. It appears that there is some discrepancy in identifying the proper position of the plot of land where the petitioner intends to raise construction. To dispel any doubt from the minds of the parties, the Executive Officer of the Chinsurah Hooghly Municipality is directed to conduct a spot inspection upon notice to the necessary parties including the concerned Fisheries Officer, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and the petitioner to ascertain the exact place where the petitioner intends to raise construction. The report of spot inspection shall be circulated. The Municipality will thereafter take a decision whether to proceed with the mass petition that has been filed by the members of the locality. If it appears that there is any error in the records, then necessary steps shall be taken to rectify the same. 4 The impugned notice dated 29th May, 2023 issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipality shall be kept in abeyance till fresh order is passed by the Municipality in this regard. The writ petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 — s. 17A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.