Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Naktala Minibus Workers Union & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 May, 2016
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
04.05.2016
10.
as
M.A.T.1511 of 2015
With
CAN 9796 of 2015
With
C.A.N.10801 of 2015
With
M.A.T.215 of 2016
With
CAN 1589 of 2016
With
C.A.N.1590 of 2016
With
C.A.N.1591 of 2016
Naktala Minibus Workers Union & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kishore Dutta,
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty,
Mr. Anindya Bose.
...for the Appellants.
Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty,
Mr. N. Chaudhury,
Mr. Debasish Mitra.
...for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Jahar Lal De, Mr. Shamim Ul Bari.
...for the State (MAT 1511 of 2015).
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. R. N. Dutta.
...for the State (MAT 215 of 2016).
Mr. H. K. Bandopadhyay, Mr. Prithwish Kumar Bose.
...for the Respondent Nos.9 & 10.
2In Re: CAN 1590 of 2016 (In M.A.T.215 of 2016) This is an application praying for leave to prefer an appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Leave is granted.
The application, being CAN 1590 of 2016, is disposed of.
Re: CAN 1591 of 2016 (In MAT 215 of 2016) The appeal is barred by time.
Causes being sufficient, delay is condoned and the appeal is taken on record.
The application for condonation of delay is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Re: M.A.T.1511 of 2015 With CAN 9796 of 2015 With C.A.N.10801 of 2015 With M.A.T.215 of 2016 With CAN 1589 of 2016 3 Both the appeals are filed by the third party contending that without impleading them as parties, the learned Judge passed the impugned order. Therefore, the order has to be set aside.
The contention of the appellants is that in the very body of the writ petition, there is reference to some illegal and unauthorised construction on the said land way back in 1995 and use of the land as Garia Bus Stand by some local political leaders. The present appellants claim that they are bus conductors and other workers under the owners who are using the said land as alleged by the writ petitioner himself as a bus stand.
According to the appellants by securing the present impugned order, the writ petitioner is circumventing the procedure that ought to have been followed by them to evict unauthorised occupants and not by taking police assistance as sought in the writ petition. Several averments are made in the writ petition.
We have heard arguments and we have gone through the averments. The writ petition mentions the entire events of litigation pertaining to this land right from the time of purchase by the writ petitioner. It has also narrated before whom said proceeding was challenged including this Court and ultimately how the right of the writ petitioner over the land is clear. We also note that a declaration is sought in the writ petition to declare the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the property in question.
The learned Judge after referring to Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India opined that the petitioner should not be disturbed by the unauthorised encroachers. He also refers to the submission of the learned 4 Counsel for the writ petitioner that neither the operators of the vehicles nor the owners of the vehicles have any right to park their vehicle on the private land.
Apparently, none of these persons referred to in the impugned order during the arguments of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner were made parties to the proceedings. Now some of the owners of the bus have come on record as appellants. Ultimately, one has to see whether police protection could be granted or not to allow the writ petitioner to construct a boundary wall in the light of very averments made by the writ petitioner that from way back in 1995 itself there was unauthorised construction and bus stand in the land in question as indicated in the other writ petition referred to at paragraph 15 of the writ petition. If third parties have occupied the said land detrimental to the interest of the owner of the land whether it could be intervened under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be analysed and opined only if the so called encroachers or the people who claimed to be in occupation of the land are also heard, especially, in the light of observation of the Apex Court that even a trespasser cannot be ousted from the land unless due process of law is adhered to. Whether the appellants have come into occupation subsequent to appeal or earlier as referred to in paragraph 15 cannot be gone into by the Writ Court while hearing the matter.
Under these circumstances, we remand back the matter to the learned Single Judge to hear the appellants as well and dispose of the matter on merits in the light of above observation.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 5 In order to save time, we implead the appellants as party respondents to the writ petition against whom the proceedings shall be conducted. If writ petitioner intends to implead any other parties as well, they are at liberty to implead them.
The appellants are at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition within four weeks from today with an advance copy to the writ petitioner who shall file reply, if any, within two weeks thereafter. Parties are at liberty to seek early disposal of the matter.
Both the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of.
(Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)