AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The matter has a chequered history.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the writ petitioners filed an application for conversion of the subject land from a water body to a hotel on March 8, 2023, under the provisions of Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1955 Act‟).
Subsequently, a notification was issued by the State Government for restoration of water bodies by demolition of structures.
The matter came up before this court in a Public Interest Litigation, which was disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps in view of such notification.
A review application filed by the petitioners was rejected, however, with a liberty to the writ petitioners to file a comprehensive representation under the provisions of the 1955 Act.
Subsequently, the matter went to the Collector (ADM and DL & LRO), who came to the conclusion that the proceeding was to be converted to one under Rule 166 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991, in view of it having transpired that the land had already been converted to some other use than appearing from the records of rights.
The said proceeding ultimately culminated in an order dated December 26, 2023, whereby the Collector (ADM and DL & LRO) observed that after perusal of the documents produced by the writ petitioners, including a receipt of property tax, the authenticity of the same was required to be verified and needed to be supported by auxiliary documents.
It was further observed that the said document was not supported by cogent evidence.
On such premise, it was held that the parameters laid down in Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual were not fulfilled and, as such, the representation of the writ petitioners was rejected.
Being thus aggrieved, a challenge was preferred thereto before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal by filing an Original Application.
In the meantime, the BL &LRO concerned passed an order for implementation of the order of the Collector, against which a challenge was preferred by way of an interlocutory application in connection with the Original Application.
The same was initially rejected, which was affirmed by this court.
The matter went up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, which granted protection to the writ petitioners from demolition till disposal of the Original Application.
By the impugned judgment, the Original Application has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the learned Tribunal cast the burden of proof on the writ petitioners, by giving a go-bye to the provisions of Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual.
It is pointed out that in cases where it is found that the land has already been converted, it should be enquired as to whether the change in use has been made in the usual course of nature or by deliberate action on the part of the applicant or any other person.
In the latter case, it should also be ascertained whether the change took place before March 24, 1986, that is, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981.
Clause (ii) of Rule 166 provides that if the change in the use of land has occurred under the four circumstances enumerated therein, the applicant should be informed that the change is being noted in the records of rights and the said records should be corrected accordingly in due course.
It is argued that in the present case, the Collector did not resort to any such exercise of enquiry or obtaining a report to ascertain whether the change took place before March 24, 1986 and, if so, whether the criteria under Clause (ii) of Rule 166 were satisfied.
Instead, it is contended, by a cryptic order, the Collector rejected the representation of the writ petitioners, which was affirmed by the Tribunal on an erroneous notion that the burden lay not on the respondent-authorities to undertake appropriate enquiry but squarely on the writ petitioners to establish their case.
Learned counsel cites Dipak Barbaria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported at (2014) 3 SCC 502, in support of the proposition that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.
Learned counsel next cites T. Takano vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, reported at (2022) 8 SCC 162, for the proposition that the possession of information by both the parties can aid the courts in determining the truth of contentions raised before a forum. These issues, all paramount in shaping the jurisprudence surrounding the principles of access to justice and transparency, it was held, range from identifying the purpose and extent of disclosure required, to balancing the conflicting claims of access to justice and grounds of public interest such as privacy, confidentiality and market interest.
It is, thus, highlighted by learned counsel that disclosure of all information available to the parties is of paramount importance.
Learned counsel also lays stress upon the relevant observations made in paragraph no.43 of the judgment dated September 22, 2025 in an earlier round of litigation, where a coordinate Bench of this court had observed that it would be open to both parties and the State to place all relevant documents, if not already placed, including the orders passed in the Public Interest Litigation, before the Tribunal, to facilitate a proper and comprehensive disposal of the Original Application.
It is argued that in the present case, despite document s having been produced, including property tax receipts of prior to 1986 as well as a communication by the Panchayat Pradhan indicating that the construction was made before the cut-off date stipulated in Rule 166, those were not adverted to and no enquiry was undertaken by the Collector to that effect.
Thus, it is argued that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and that of the Collector are vitiated in law.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the State/respondent-authorities, places reliance on the documents on which the writ petitioners claim title.
It is sought to be pointed out that the schedules of the gift deeds, by dint of which the petitioners claim their title to th e property, indicate that the land was a „Doba‟ and had currently been converted to „Bastu‟.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel also places reliance on a purported statement of plan proposal in respect of construction on the said property, obtained by the writ petitioners, from which it is evident that the same was issued in August, 2016, that is, much after 1986.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel also places reliance on a communication by the BL & LRO, Namkhana dated April 10, 2023 to the writ petitioners, annexed at page-66 of the present writ petition, from which it would appear that consequent to the enquiry conducted by the concerned Revenue Inspector, done as per the Memo No. referred to therein, it was found that the writ petitioners had filled up a water body located at the subject land schedule.
Thus, it is argued that an enquiry was actually conducted, which ultimately led to the rejection of the writ petitioners‟ representation.
It is further submitted that the veracity of the communication made by the Panchayat Pradhan is dubious, since the same was issued decades after the cut-off date and, as such, it is doubtful as to whether the said document could come to the aid of the writ petitioners at all in satisfying the criteria laid down in Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that in view of appropriate exercise as contemplated in Rule 166 having been undertaken, and the writ petitioners having failed to furnish any auxiliary documents in support of their purported initial property tax receipt, the authorities were justified in passing the impugned judgments.
Upon hearing learned counsel, the first thing which catches the eye is that the exercise required to be conducted under Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual is not of an adversarial nature but is inquisitorial in character.
Clause (i) of Rule 166 stipulates that in cases where a conversion has already been made, it should be enquired as to whether the change in use has been made in the usual course of nature or by deliberate action on the part of the applicant or any other person.
In the latter case, the said provision enumerates that it should also be ascertained whether the change took place before March 24, 1986.
The language used in the said provision is not that the ap plicant has to establish the fact regarding the change having taken place before March 24, 1986.
Of course, we hasten to add that this does not mean that the entire burden is on the respondent-authorities to come to a finding in that regard.
Definitely, the applicant has to furnish some preliminary documents or material to initiate/trigger the enquiry in the first place.
However, once an application or a representation is made and some document is brought before the authorities, it is the bounden duty of the authorities to undertake an enquiry and to ascertain whether the change took place before the cut-off date.
The provision further continues in Clause (ii) thereof, which contemplates that if the change in the use of land has occurred under the situations as enumerated therein, such as in the usual course of nature, at a time when such change was not unlawful, occurred due to developmental activities of the Government or a local body in the surrounding area, or due to urbanization in the surrounding area, the applicant should be informed that the change is being noted in the records of rights and the said record should be corrected accordingly in due course.
As per the said provision, it is further required that if there was a reasonable cause behind the change that occurred, the Collector “may consider on the merit of the case” if post facto permission should be granted.
Thus, an elaborate exercise is contemplated in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 166 on the part of the authorities at two phases.
However, in the present case, we find that nothing is reflected in the order of the Collector as to such exercise having been undertaken.
As laid down in Dipak Barbaria (supra), relied on by the writ petitioners, if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to done in that manner and in no other.
Although there is some doubt as to how far T. Takano (supra) is applicable in the present case, since it was a case where a penal measure had been taken under the SEBI Regulations against the petitioners therein, in which context, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering the verdict of a court having far-reaching repercussions on the life and liberty of an individual, which is not the case here, fact remains that the provisions of Rule 166 themselves clearly enumerate the course of action to be taken by the respondent-authorities.
Moreover, since the effect of rejection of an application for conversion would have a material bearing on the applicant, valuable rights might have accrued in whose favour in the meantime, before coming to a conclusion, an appropriate opportunity of hearing has to be given worth the name to the applicant, at least by furnishing all documents, including enquiry report, which the authorities intend to rely on, to the applicant to enable him/her to meet those.
Without such opportunity, if an order is passed rejecting the application, it would squarely hit the principle of Audi Alteram Partem.
Thus, in the present case, the learned Tribunal erroneously placed undue stress on the principle of burden of proof by a person who asserts a fact, by overlooking the framework of Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual.
Accordingly, WPLRT 147 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the judgment dated July 15, 2026 passed by the Third Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. no.61 of 2024 (LRTT), as well as setting aside the order dated December 26, 2023 passed by the Collector (Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, South 24 Parganas) in respect of File No.59(C)/351/P/2023, and remanding the matter to the Collector (ADM and DL & LRO) for undertaking a fresh exercise of enquiring into the veracity of the documents furnished by the writ petitioners before the Collector.
While doing so, an enquiry shall be undertaken by the Collector with regard to the parameters laid down in Rule 166 of the 1991 Manual vis-à-vis the writ petitioners‟ application for conversion.
Whatever documents and other materials are intended to be relied on by the Collector in coming to his/her ultimate conclusion, shall be furnished to the writ petitioners in order to enable the writ petitioners to controvert the same and put forth their version on the same.
Thereafter, upon giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all interested persons, the Collector shall dispose of the writ petitioners‟ representation by passing a reasoned order in writing.
It is expected that such exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
I agree.