AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Protik Prakash Banerjee, J
This petition has been directed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the acts of the respondent authorities permitting the private respondent to run what is alleged to be a brick field on Dag No. 594. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said Dag No. 594 is an agricultural (Sali Land) on which no mining operation can be carried on. It is his further case that in terms of Rule 42 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2016 any mining can only be done by a lease of the land in question for excavating brick earth and / or ordinary clay through competitive bidding held by the District Magistrate pursuant to statutory rules and publication in the newspapers and website of the State Government.
Mr. Samrat Sen, learned Additional Government Pleader and Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amitava Mitra, learned Advocate and Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, learned Advocate on behalf of the State and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal, appearing for the private respondents, have taken a demurrer that this petition cannot be entertained in the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there is an effective statutory remedy given under the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 where a separate procedure and mechanism has been given and a separate forum has been retained for all disputes relating to the user of land for inter alia brick fields and manufacturing factories and any pollution caused thereby. Since they have already used an affidavit in opposition and have already pointed out that from paragraph 13 of the opposition used by the private respondents, it will be apparent that Dag No. 594 is not being used for earth mining or brick earth mining or even kiln mining.
On the other hand, the documents annexed to the said affidavit in opposition clearly show that requisite protections have been obtained from the appropriate authority by the private respondents to run a manufacturing unit (brick kiln) on Dag No. 594.
In that view of the matter, it is submitted a question does not arise of getting lease to operate a brick manufacturing unit on the said land and it is, therefore, not a question of violation of statutory rules for which the writ petition shall be maintainable.
Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 any conversion of an agricultural land to any use other than agricultural is forbidden unless permission is taken from the competent authority being the Collector and in this case no such permission appears to have been taken and so even a manufacturing unit cannot be carried on the said land.
In order to test the submission whether this would be sufficient to approach this Court, I ask myself the question as what was the remedy of the writ petitioner if his case is that without the permission of the Collector over the land and its nature was being changed. I find that the petitioner not being an adjacent owner would only have complained to the Collector for taking appropriate steps under the Act of 1955 against the private respondents. Once such a complaint was made in action or any adverse order under the Act of 1955 would have been an order taken under specified Act within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, which itself would have ousted the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 320B of the Constitution of India.
So, whether I look at it from the point of view of the demurrer taken or the answer urged by Mr. Dey, nothing can be done by the Writ Court as a Court of first instance.
Accordingly, this writ petition being WP 6299(W) of 2019 is dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This order shall not prevent the writ petitioner to approach either National Green Tribunal or West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in accordance with law.