Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dipak Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 June, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Ishan Chandra Das
W.P.L.R.T. 159 of 2014
Dipak Chakraborty
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saptangsu Basu,
Mr. Sitaram Samanta.
For the State-Respondents : Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay.
Judgement On : 04-06-2014.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : The petitioner Rajarhat Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. is a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1940. The members of the said Society are all fishermen. The land held by the petitioner at Rajarhat was vested in the State under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.
It is contended by the petitioner that even though the land was vested in the State, but the State has not yet taken over possession of such vested land. It is further contended by the petitioner that the members of the said Fishermen's Co-operative Society are still in possession of such vested land and they are residing there by raising structures thereon. They have applied for settlement of the said vested land on long term basis before the Additional District Magistrate & the District Land & Land Reforms Officer, South 24-Parganas on 10th January, 2006. Several reminders were also given to the said Additional District Magistrate & the District Land & Land Reforms Officer for consideration of the petitioner's said representation and/or for settlement of the said vested land to the members of the petitioner's Society.
Since the petitioner's said application has not yet been decided by the concerned authority till date, the petitioner-Society filed an application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, inter alia, praying for issuance of direction upon the concerned authority for early disposal of the petitioner's said representation. The said tribunal application was registered as O.A. No. 1728/2013 (LRTT).
After entertaining the said application, a report was sought for from the B.L.&L.R.O., ATM Kasba, South 24-Parganas regarding the petitioner's proposal for settlement of the said vested land on long term basis. Pursuant to such direction passed by the Learned Tribunal on 11th September, 2013, a report as to the latest position of the long term settlement proposal in favour of the petitioner's Society was submitted by the concerned B.L.&L.R.O. wherein it was mentioned that no such proposal for long term settlement of such vested land in favour of the petitioner's Co-operative Society has yet been initiated as there exists no waterbody on the vested land which may be used for pisciculture therein. Possession of the petitioner in respect of the vested land was also doubted.
Considering the said report dated 28th April, 2014 submitted by the B.L.&L.R.O., A.T.M. at Kasba, South 24-Parganas, the Learned Tribunal by its order dated 2nd May, 2014 dismissed the original application by holding inter alia that there is no scope for issuing such direction upon the ADM & D.L. & L.R.O., South 24-Parganas at Alipore to initiate proposal for long term settlement in favour of the petitioner as no waterbody exists on the said land.
The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the Learned Tribunal passed on 2nd May, 2014 in O.A. No. 1728 of 2013 (LRTT) is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner-Society.
It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society that the Learned Tribunal rejected the petitioner's said application without appreciating the reason for which such settlement was sought for by the petitioner. It is contended by him that the members of the petitioner's Society applied for settlement of such vested land on long term basis for their residential purpose and not for the purpose of pisciculture in the waterbody. Mr. Basu thus contends that existence of waterbody on the vested land cannot be a decisive factor for consideration of the petitioner's proposal for grant of such long term settlement of the vested land in favour of the Co- operative Society.
We find substance in such contention of Mr. Basu and accordingly we set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 2nd May, 2014 in O.A. No. 1728 of 2013 (LRTT) and direct the A.D.M. & D.L. & L.R.O., South 24- Parganas at Alipore to consider the petitioner's said application for settlement of such vested land on long term basis in favour of the petitioner-Society and to take the ultimate decision thereon after hearing the representative of the petitioner-Society and by passing a reasoned order in support of its conclusion positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.
It is made clear that in course of hearing if any person other than the members of the petitioner-Society is found to be in possession of the land in question, he should also be given an opportunity of hearing by the concerned authority before taking the ultimate decision in this regard.
It is further clarified that in the event the petitioner-Society wants to file any additional and/or supplementary pleadings, it may do so within a week from date for bringing further materials on record including the purpose for which it wants settlement of the land in question.
Until such decision is taken by the concerned authority, the State- respondents are restrained from settling the said land either on long term or short term basis in favour of any person other than the members of the petitioner's Society.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.) I agree.
( ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, J. ) dc.