AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.: -
By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Additional Executive Officer, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad (in short, ‘Zilla Parishad’) in Misc. Proceeding No. 01 of 2022.
By the said impugned order, the Zilla Parishad cancelled the sanctioned plan granted earlier in favour of Sri Pradip Kumar Bera & Sri Sudip Kumar Bera, petitioners herein, in respect of plot nos. 611, 612 and 613 upon hearing the B.D.O. Kolaghat, B.L&L.R.O. Kolaghat, Fishery Extension Officer, Kolaghat and the present petitioners.
The observation of the officer of the Zilla Parishad is quoted, inter alia, as follows:
“The petitioners manage to procure the permission of construction of (G+3) building plan on the strength of existing record. But physical character of the plots is water body.
It is crystal clear that suit plots are water body in its existing form. The Fishery Extension Officer highlighted the provision 17A of West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act. 1984 wherein restriction is imposed on conversion of water area etc. for other use. That being the position of physical status of the plots as on date is water body. So those plots cannot be converted into residential building at any point of time in part.
Hence, it is ordered that the residential building permission sanctioned in favour of Pradip Kumar Bera and Sudip Kumar Bera, Vill-Bar Barisha, P.O.- Kolaghat, Dist.-Purba Medinipur. Vide this office memo No.-2270/III/PMZP/21 dated 08.10.2021 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. All concerned be informed accordingly.”
It is the specific case of the petitioners that they had purchased a total land measuring an area of about 27 decimals comprising L.R. Dag nos. 611, 612 and 613 by virtue of three registered sale deeds in the year 2018 from the erstwhile owners, and since then they have had peaceful possession of the said land. The petitioners had applied for mutation, and the same was allowed by the authority upon perusal of the documents supplied by the petitioners. The names of the petitioners have been mutated in the L.R. Record of Rights, and the category of plots is recorded as Bastu.
After mutation of their names, they applied for building sanction plan before the Additional Executive Officer, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad and the permission was granted vide Memo No. 2270/III/PMZP/21 dated 08.10.2021 for construction of a G+3 storied building, i.e., over the land being LR Dag Nos. 611, 612 and 613, J.L. No. 288, Khatian Nos. 6001, 6006, 6007, Mouza-Barbarisha.
Suddenly, the BDO Kolaghat received a complaint from one Sukalyan Banerjee and others and raised the issue before the Zilla Parishad. Upon such complaint, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioners and a hearing was conducted. Ultimately, the sanction plan was cancelled as aforesaid.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present petitioners filed this writ application.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the nature of the land, belonging to the petitioners, is Bastu as per the Record of Rights, relying upon R.S. and L.R. records. He draws the attention of this court to the Parcha i.e. R.S. and L.R. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the physical enquiry report dated 14.06.2022. Inspection was carried out by the Enquiry Officer, Kolaghat Development Block, wherefrom, it appears that the nature of the entire land, being Dag nos. 611, 612 and 613, is Jala (water body) and some portions are Bastu. The petitioners claim that the nature of the entire land of the petitioners, i.e., 27 decimals, is Bastu. Therefore, the order passed by the Zilla Parishad is bad in law as it was passed without considering the relevant documents, particularly R.S. and L.R. records and without proper inquiry; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
It is further submitted that the Zilla Parishad cannot cancel the sanction plan, once it has been sanctioned and granted by it after verifying all the documents of the petitioners including the registered deed, and record of rights.
It is further contended that other persons have constructed buildings and are residing on the portion of plots of land, i.e., LR Dag Nos. 611, 612 and 613 pursuant to the sanction plan; as such, all portions of the plot are not water bodies.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent no.10, on the other hand, vehemently raised an objection to the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and further submits that the plots of land of the petitioners are wholly water bodies. He also relies upon the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Public Interest Litigation being WPA(P) 60 of 2021 (Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), particularly paragraph no. 4, where it was held as under:
“A detailed report filed by the State stating that there are enquiries conducted by various authorities and from the report submitted, it would be apparent that a pond named ‘Kalpukur’ is situated on the subject plots of land, the major portion of which falls with plot nos. 612 and 613. However, the inquiry does not reveal of filing up of any portion of water body during field inquiry.”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad had filed a report as per direction of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court indicating therein that the entire land of the petitioners is a water body and none of the individuals were allowed or sanctioned any plan on any portions of the plots of land.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and BDO clearly states that the plots involved in the writ petition were perennial water bodies and retain water throughout the year, and those lands were used for pisciculture.
Having heard the submissions of the respective parties and on careful perusal of the materials available on record including the affidavits, this court clearly finds from the C.S. record that all the three plots were water bodies (Jala). No documents have been produced by the petitioners, even when insisted by this court, to indicate when it was converted into Bastu, and the same is recorded in the R.S. and L.R. Record of Rights.
The Zilla Parishad, while hearing the petitioners and other necessary parties, clearly stated that the said plots of land are water bodies in their existing form. The Fishery Extension Officer highlighted the provision 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, wherein the conversion of water areas etc. for other uses is strictly prohibited.
Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Zilla Parishad, and it calls for no interference by this Court.
Consequently, WPA No. 27067 of 2022 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Consequently, CAN No. 1 of 2025 is, thus, disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment duly downloaded from the official website of the High Court at Calcutta.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary and legal formalities.