Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Supirya @ Tiya Mukhopadhyay vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 June, 2015
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
06.15
120
ab
W.P. 5987(W) of 2015
Smt. Supirya @ Tiya Mukhopadhyay
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asim Hati,
... for the petitioner
Mr. P. B. Mahata,
... for the State respondents
Heard Mr. Hati, the learned advocate for the petitioner. The State respondents are not called to make any submission in this case.
The order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Appellate Authority on December 3, 2014 in Appeal Case No. 3 of 2002. By the said order, the Appellate Authority had, inter alia, found that the appellant was trying to get rid of the vesting of 218.88 Sqm. of land and was trying to get the benefit of relief from the said plot by describing it variously. The Appellate Authority thus rejected the contention of the appellant.
I have heard Mr. Hati and have gone through the writ petition and have perused the different documents including the R.S and L.R records of rights. The first point of objection taken by the petitioner is that the plot number had been wrongly recorded in the order impugned. While the plot number in respect of which proceeding had taken place was Plot No. 190 it has been wrongly recorded as plot No. 192(P). This must have been the result of some typographical mistake as it was nobody's case that the plot No. 192(P) was involved in the present case. At least the 2 petitioner never lulled any doubt about the identity of the plot itself.
After perusing the order impugned and after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Much assertion to the contrary, the Appellate Authority had taken the R.S and L.R records of rights into consideration and had also seen the report of the competent authority as well as enquiry report by the CWO. One of the points taken by the petitioner is that the enquiry had taken place pursuant to a direction given by the Appellate Authority. That does not render either the order impugned bad or makes the order any manner impeachable in a writ jurisdiction. For ascertainment of the real state of affairs, it is very much within the competence of the Appellate Authority to direct the report to be placed before it after physical verification of the land in question.
It further appears from the order of the Appellate Authority that the appellant or her predecessor-in-interest had been taking inconsistent pleas with regard to the nature of the land in question for exclusion of residual part of land out of Plot No.
190. These inconsistent pleas justify the conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was trying to get the relief by describing it either as 'Bastu' or as 'Bagan'. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that existence of merely a few fruit bearing trees does not mean that the land in question is being used for horticulture, is backed by the enquiry report and this Court cannot discard the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority.
3In such view of it, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J)