Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Montu Sardar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 May, 2012
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
29.
17.05.2012
(p.j.)
W.P. No. 10452 (W) of 2012
Montu Sardar & Ors. ... petitioners
-versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
... respondents.
Mr. Sunil Kr. Pan Mr. Udyan Roy Mr. Sukanta Mondal ... for the petitioners Mr. Amit Kr. Pan Mrs. Tanusri Santra ... for the respondent no. 12 Mr. Sushovan Sengupta ... for the State Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners under the West Bengal Highways Act for their eviction from public land. The petitioners have responded to the notices that have been issued by the concerned Assistant Engineer. No final order has been passed in such proceedings determining the status of the petitioners as unauthorized occupants of public land and, 2 therefore, they are liable to be evicted. During the pendency of such proceedings, the petitioners came to learn that the respondent authorities are seeking to evict them in pursuance of an order passed by this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 4425 (W) of 2012. That was a writ petition filed by the private respondent herein. While disposing of the writ petition on 26th March, 2012, the following direction was issued.
"Having heard the learned advocates for the parties since I find that the petitioner has deposited salami and annual rent as requested by the respondent no. 6, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the said respondent to handover vacant possession of the plot of land in question to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of this order. If need be the respondent no. 6 is at liberty to apply for police help and in that event the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, the added respondent, shall render necessary assistance."
Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to the writ petition. The order dated 26th March, 2012 was, therefore, one passed behind their back.
It is submitted before this Court on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent authorities may be restrained from evicting them on the basis of the order dated 26th March, 2012 and that they may be directed to complete the proceedings that have been initiated under the Act.
3A point of maintainability of the writ petition has been taken by Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State. According to him, the petitioners ought to have prefer an appeal against the order dated 26th March, 2012 and not having done so, the respondent authorities cannot be restrained from carrying out a lawful order of Court.
In my view, the objection is not well founded. The writ petition is maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1963 SC 1909 (Shiv Deo Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others). The objection, therefore, stands overruled. Having heard Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Pan, learned Advocate for the private respondent and Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State, I dispose of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioners shall not be evicted on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 26th March, 2012. However, the proceedings initiated against them under the Act shall be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and if an order of eviction is passed, the same may be implemented, also in accordance with law.
It is expected that the respondent authorities shall conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioners as early as possible but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4Needless to observe, while deciding this writ petition I have refrained from expressing any opinion on the claims and counterclaims of the private parties.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Dipankar Datta, J.)