Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sobur Molla @ Sk. Golam Sobur Molla & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 December, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
16.12.2019
11
RP Ct.04
WP 20158 (W) of 2019
Sobur Molla @ Sk. Golam Sobur Molla & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mahammad Mahmud, adv.
Mr. M. S. Mollah, adv.
.... For petitioners
Mr. Jahar Lal Dey, adv.
Mr. Milan Kr. Maity, adv.
.... For State
Mr. Kajal Ray, adv.
Mr. Aditya Sen, adv.
.... For respondent no.9
Petitioners have been given opportunity to demolish their construction, failing which demolition would be made by the Gram Panchayat. This was said by impugned notice dated 24th September, 2019.
Mr. Mahmud, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and on earlier occasion had relied on rule 19 in West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 to submit, the proviso dispenses with requirement of permission from the Gram Panchayat, for construction of house under Poverty Alleviation Programme. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, from impugned memo it does not appear that petitioners constructed house 2 under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. If construction is or has been made with assistance under the scheme then no permission is necessary. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent and submits, his client has stated in connected application that petitioners' mother constructed two rooms under the scheme and this is further construction, which is not covered under the scheme and therefore without permission. There should be no interference with impugned memo.
Relevant paragraphs from impugned memo are set out below:-
"Alternatively, Meheran Mollah submitted before me that their construction under the scheme of PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) as he is living under below poverty line. He further submitted before me that he would not be able to construct any Pucca brick build building in his life without help of the PMAY scheme. He further submitted that at the time of construction, he had no knowledge about the permission of building construction. Accordingly he made submissions to retain such construction.
After heard submissions of the both parties, it is admitted that constructions of Meheran Mollah and Sabur Mollah had constructed without obtaining any sanction plan 3 from the Panchayat authority and as such, the said construction is illegal and same to be demolished.
Accordingly, Mr. Meheran Mollah and Sabur Mollah hereby give opportunity to demolish the such construction immediately preferably within a period of five working days from the receipt of this order, in default the authority, will demolish the such construction and will recover the cost thereof from you."
It does appear that petitioners' contention of having caused construction under the scheme was not dealt with by Pradhan, Basubati Gram Panchayat. Submissions made on behalf of State, therefore, fall in line.
Impugned memo is set aside. Pradhan, Basubati Gram Panchayat, if feels due requirement to issue demolition order regarding petitioners' construction, their contention of having constructed under the scheme and thereby not required to take permission, must be dealt with in the demolition order to be made.
Mr. Ray's submission is recorded that Pradhan, Basubati Gram Panchayat must act on information had from his client regarding 4 demolition. The office must either proceed for demolition in compliance with observations made above or pass an order saying that there is no case for demolition. This must be done on giving parties opportunity of hearing. The Pradhan is required to deal with this allegation of private respondent for demolition and petitioners' resistance to it, by passing reasoned order within four weeks from date of communication of this order.
This writ petition and the connected application, treated as on day's list, are disposed of.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) 5