Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
3 Ct. No.09 Sri Subrata Bhattacharyya vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
04.07. W. P. 736 (W) of 2016
g.b. 2017
03 Ct. No.09 Sri Subrata Bhattacharyya
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kalyan Sengupta
Mr. Rahul Karmakar
........For the Petitioner
Mr. Chandi Charan De
.....For the State
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
December 14, 2015 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer,
Paschim Medinipur, by which the petitioner was directed
to pay Rs. 17,73,340/-.
The petitioner claims that he was granted lease of
38.25 acres of land appertaining to plot no. 840 (P) in
Mouza - Dakshin Bengai under P. S. Kotwali in the
district of Paschim Medinipur by the State of West Bengal
for extracting sand for a period of five years.
Subsequently on January 20, 2012 a registered deed of
declaration was executed for the purpose of renewal of the
original lease for carrying out mining operation for
extracting sand from 32.80 acres of land instead of 38.25
acres of land. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner could not extract sand due to flood on
2
the leasehold land in the year 2012 and in the year 2013
and the petitioner submitted one representation on
November 15, 2012 before the Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Midnapore Sadar ventilating his
grievance. On July 24, 2015 the respondent no.4 made a
demand of Rs.17,73,340/- from the petitioner as royalty for extracting sand. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said respondent did not consider the fact that the petitioner could not extract sand due to heavy flood in the year 2012 and in the year 2013, but the said respondent demanded the said amount by passing the impugned order under challenge in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner produced the report of the flood in the year 2011 and 2012 along with the representation dated November 15, 2012 before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, (Annexure P/1 to the writ application), but the respondent no.4 did not consider the report of the flood while passing the impugned order dated December 14, 2015. By referring to paragraph 5 under Part -IX of the original lease deed dated January 31, 2007, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 should have considered the report of the flood as 3 documentary evidence for not extracting the sand for the purpose of assessment of the royalty, but the said respondent has not considered the provisions of the lease deed.
I have also heard Mr. De, learned counsel representing the State respondents.
Having heard learned counsel representing the both parties and on consideration of the impugned order under challenge in the writ petition, I find that the respondent no.4 has not considered the report of flood annexed to the representation submitted by the petitioner before Land and Land Reforms Officer. It is not clear from the materials on record whether the report of the flood was placed before the respondent no.4, because the said report of the flood was annexed to the representation submitted before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and not before the respondent no.4. However, for giving proper justice I am of the view that the respondent no.4 should give the petitioner an opportunity to place the documents in connection with the flood for assessment of the royalty on the ground of not extracting sand for the year 2012 and 2013.
In view of my above findings the impugned order 4 dated December 14, 2015 passed by the respondent no.4 is quashed. The respondent no.4, Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms, Paschim Medinipur is directed to assess the amount of royalty afresh by giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing including placing of the report of the flood within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The respondent no.4 will re-assess the amount of royalty and issue fresh demand, if any, to the petitioner within a period of two weeks after assessment of the amount of royalty.
With the above direction writ application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.
(R. K. Bag, J) 5