Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sarat Pradhan vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 December, 2018
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
1
W. P. No. 11717 (W) of 2016
13.12.2018
Sarat Pradhan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta
... for the petitioner
Mr. Samiran Mondal
... for the respondent no. 5
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata ... for the State The primary grievance of the petitioner pertains to the threat of demolition of his residential house. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner lawfully obtained conversion in respect of the aforementioned premises and had also obtained a sanctioned building plan for construction of a residential accommodation at the said premises. However, on 24 June, 2016 during the course of construction the State Authorities have threatened to demolish the construction on the ground that there was an alleged encroachment on the main road by the petitioner.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.3 being the Additional District Magistrate that the petitioner has encroached on government land measuring 0.0132 acres of land to which the petitioner has no right, title or 2 interest. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No.3 that the petitioner has suppressed a general notice dated 20 June, 2016 which was issued for demarcation of the encroached land. All these facts are also reiterated in an affidavit filed by the respondent No.3.
The respondent No.5 being the Bankura Municipality has also filed an affidavit supporting the case of the respondent No.3. It has reiterated that the petitioner has encroached government land and appropriate orders be passed for removal of the illegal encroachment. It is also submitted on behalf of the Municipality that the said plot had been acquired vide L.A. Case No.9/1985-85 and adequate compensation has been paid to the original land owner. Counsel on behalf of the Municipality further submitted that all these material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. He also places strong reliance on Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 which empowers the authorities to take action for cancellation of permission granted to a land owner on the ground of material misrepresentation.
It is obvious that the issues raised in the present writ petition are contentious and disputed questions of facts. However, all the appearing parties agree that it is the respondent No.2 being the District Magistrate who ought to go into the questions raised in these proceedings. 3
In the circumstances the petitioner is directed to file a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of this order before the District Magistrate who will duly consider such representation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the representation in accordance with law and communicate a reasoned decision to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
Nothing in this order ought to be construed as being an adjudication on the merits of the instant proceedings which shall be decided by the respondent No.2 without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
It is an admitted position that there has been a subsisting interim order since 5 September, 2016 that the State will not do anything to change the present nature and the character of the disputed land and the petitioner will not make any further construction. In these circumstances, considering the balance of convenience I am inclined to extend the interim order dated 5 September, 2016 which had been granted to the petitioner till the respondent No.2 disposes of the representation in terms of the aforesaid directions. The petitioner further undertakes that he will take no advantage of the interim order and the same will not be interpreted to be an adjudication on the merits of the instant disputes before the District Magistrate.
4
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)