AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shampa Sarkar, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated January 27, 2017 passed by the Savadhipati, Purba Medinipur, Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent no. 3) this writ petition has been filed.
According to the petitioner, he was the owner and the occupier ofthe land measuring 0.02 decimals in the L.R. Dag No. 202 Mouja Pratappur,
Police Station â€" Panskura, District â€" Purba Medinipur. After purchase of the said land he constructed over 0.02 decimals and Purba Medinipur
Zilla Parishad by a registered deed of lease for a period of five years permitted the petitioner to occupy the Zilla Parishad’s land measuring 48 ft.
X 18 ft. in L.R. Dag No. 1144, Hal Dag no. 1475/1568 as per the established norm of the Zilla Parishad as the said land was situated in front of the
petitioners land. The Zilla Parishad accepted yearly occupation charges in respect of the said land upto the year 2013. Thereafter, from 2014-15 the
Zilla Parishad refused to accept the occupation fees. Finding no other alternative the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act
on October 9, 2015 and the Zilla Parishad informed the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 had got temporary short-term settlement in respect of the
Zilla Parishad’s land.
The petitioner was constrained to file a complaint case under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Purba Medinipur against the respondent no. 7 who was illegally running business on the land and was trying to destroy the shop rooms constructed on
the Zilla Parishad’s land occupied by the petitioners which was settled to him by the Zilla Parishad. A Title Suit No. 35 of 2009 was filed by the
mother of the respondent no. 7 for declaration and injunction that the petitioner had sold 0.06 decimal of land to the mother of the petitioner by two
registered deeds of sale. The petitioner also filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the mother of the respondent no. 7 being Title
Suit no. 37 of 2009. Both the suits were pending before the appropriate Civil Court. That the dispute between the parties was over the occupation of
the land of the Zilla Parishad measuring 48 ft. X 18 ft. in L.R. Dag no. 1144 being Plot No. 1475/1568 situated in front of Plot No. 202. The petitioner
was aggrieved by the action on the part of the authorities in colluding with the respondent no. 7 and in giving the respondent no. 7 temporary
settlement of the land which was earlier settled in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. no. 1533 (W) of 2016 before this Court which was disposed of by an order dated June 28, 2016, with
a direction upon the respondent authorities particularly the Zilla Parishad to allow the petitioner to participate in any process in the event there was any
allotment of the land and further directed that the Zilla Parishad should follow a transparent procedure and pass an reasoned order on all future
allotments. The aforesaid order of this Court was communicated to the respondent no. 3 by the learned Advocate of the petitioner.
That thereafter, the respondent no. 3 passed an order datedJanuary 27, 2017 upon hearing all parties. By the said order the respondent no. 3 came
to a finding that the petitioner had sold land measuring 0.06 decimals out of 0.08 decimals in Plot no. 202 to the mother of Avijit Samanta the
respondent no. 7 and the petitioner surrendered the possession of land of the Zilla Parishad. The mother of the respondent no. 7 had allowed the
respondent no. 7 to use the said land and consequently the respondent no. 7 was granted short term settlement of the land of the Zilla Parishad after
observing all formalities. That the petitioner had violated the terms of the deed and as per settled norms of the Zilla Parishad, temporary settlement of
the land was granted to the respondent no. 7 as the said respondent no. 7 had a bigger area of land in Plot no. 202 adjacent to Plot no. 1475/1568.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 stated in their affidavit-in-oppositionthat the temporary settlement that was granted to the petitioner initially for a period
of two years in respect of the Zilla Parishad land in Plot no. 1475/1568 was renewed from time to time upto 2013. Thereafter, it was not renewed.
The petitioner sold land measuring 0.06 decimal of land with pacca structure out of 0.08 decimal in Plot no. 202 to the mother of the respondent no. 7.
The respondent no. 7 made an application to the Zilla Parishad praying for grant of leave and license of Plot no. 1475/1568 in respect of the
proportionate area adjacent to the area under his occupation in Plot no. 202 and consequent upon such application an area of 648 sq. ft. out of total
864 sq. ft. was temporarily settled in favour of the respondent no. 7 as the said area of 648 sq. ft. was adjacent to the 0.06 decimals of land occupied
by the said respondent in Plot no. 202.
The petitioner was offered settlement of 216 sq. ft. of the said Zilla Parishad land, proportionate to the area of 0.02 decimals in Plot no. 202 under his
occupation upon deposit of necessary fees, but the petitioner did not act in terms of the said offer. That a negotiation had taken place between the
petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and a resolution was accepted by both parties to the effect that a survey would take place to measure the
respective portions occupied by the respective parties in Plot no. 202 and on the ratio of the ownership of the said plot the Zilla Parishad would grant
leave and license of their plot no. 1475/1568 according to the frontage. That the Zilla Parishad had decided that the writ petitioner and the respondent
no. 7 would be granted temporary settlement of the Plot no. 1475/1568 owned by the Zilla Parishad in proportion to the area under their occupation
and ownership in respect of Plot no. 202. That 648 sq. ft. would be settled in favour of the respondent no. 7 and 216 sq. ft. would be settled in favour
of the writ petition.
The respondent no. 7 filed his affidavit-in-opposition and inter aliastated that the temporary settlement of the plot belonging to the Zilla Parishad was
given to him from the period is 1st Baishak 1421 to 1422 and subsequently for the year 1423 B.S. to 1424, 30th Chaitra and thereafter upto 30th
Chaitra 1426 B.S. by way of temporary settlement with a permission to construct a temporary structure. The petitioner according to him had violated
the condition of the Ekaranama and constructed a pacca structure so the temporary settlement was not renewed in favour of the petitioner. The
dispute relating to occupation and business over Plot no. 202 was already subject matter of two civil suits and, as such, writ petition was not
maintainable.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner claimed that he was entitled toget first preference as the land of the Zilla Parishad was situated in front of the
petitioner’s portion comprising of 0.02 decimals in Plot no. 202 and not in front of the portion occupied by the respondent no. 7.
He further stated that he did not surrender any portion of the of theZilla Parishad’s land situated in Plot no. 1475/1568 to the Zilla Parishad and
that the agreement for short term settlement with the Zilla Parishad was from March 16, 2000 for a period of five years and he paid occupation fees
upto 2013. He denied the factum of amicable settlement.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is foundfrom the records that a suit for partition at the instance of the petitioner in relation to
Plot no. 202 is pending. Another suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Plot no. 202 filed by the mother of the respondent no. 7 is
also pending in the Civil Court. In both the suits the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 have alleged forceful dispossession and encroachment and
prayed for partition and title right by way of adverse possession respectively over Plot no. 202.
On a perusal of the documents annexed to the respectivepleadings, I find that the Savadhipati, Purba Medinipur, Zilla Parishad had arrived at a
conclusion that the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 had dispossessed him was not correct, but that the situation was otherwise. He
further came to a conclusion that the petitioner sold 0.06 decimal of land in Plot no. 202, adjacent to the land of the Zilla Parishad to the mother of the
respondent no. 7 and had surrendered the possession of the land of the Zilla Parishad. According to the authority, the petitioner had violated the terms
and conditions of the agreement, and thereafter the respondent no. 7 was given temporary settlement of plot no. 1475/1568 for an area measuring 648
sq. ft. of the Zilla Parishad land adjacent to the 0.06 decimals of land owned and possessed by the respondent no. 7 in Plot no. 202. According to the
said authority the Zilla Parishad, caused a spot enquiry and then decided to settle the proportionate land to the respondent no. 7 on the basis of the
area under his possession contiguous and adjacent to the Plot no. 1475/1568.
The findings of the District Magistrate regarding possession, andfrontage of land occupied by the parties are disputed questions of fact and the
same cannot be decided by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, the short term settlement of the land of the Zilla Parishad granted to the
petitioner was not renewed after 2013, as such, the petitioner cannot have a vested right on the land over which the Zilla Parishad has given
temporary settlement to the respondent no. 7. The next contention of the petitioner that the land of the Zilla Parishad was not adjacent to the portion of
the land in Plot no. 202 owned and occupied by the respondent no. 7 but was adjacent to his 0.02 decimals in Plot no. 202 is also a disputed question of
fact and the writ court cannot embark upon such an exercise of measurement and demarcation of boundaries. He has relied on a sketch map (not
drawn to scale) which has been disputed by the learned Advocate of the respondent no. 7. When the renewal of the lease of the respondent no. 7
continues up to 1426 B.S., the writ court cannot direct the respondent authorities to restore possession to the petitioner, because admittedly the
petitioner did not enjoy settlement agreement with the Zilla Parishad in respect of the said Plot no. 1475/1568 after 2013. There is also no allegation of
infringement of any legal on statutory right of the petitioner.
The claim of the petitioner is based on frontage/boundary andpossession over Plot no. 202 vis-a-vis the land of the Zilla Parishad. This fact is
denied by the respondent no. 7 as also by the respondent authorities. This court cannot decide such disputed questions of fact sitting in judicial review.
Moreover, the civil suits which are pending relate to the disputeover the portion and area under the occupation of the rival parties in Plot no. 202.
Unless and until the civil suits are disposed with proper demarcation and area in occupation it would not be appropriate for this court to come to a
finding regarding the contiguity of the land of the parties vis-a-vis the Zilla Parishad land.
The writ petition is thus dismissed, however, without any order asto costs.
Urgent photostat Certified Copy of this judgment, if applied for, begiven to the parties, on priority basis.