Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Meera Nayak & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
WPA 3186 of 2019
Smt. Meera Nayak & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudip Ghosh,
Mr. Arjun Kr. Samanta,
Mr. Bidish Ghosh.
For the State : Mr. Jahar Lal De,
Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty,
Mr. Rudranil De.
Hearing concluded on : 21.02.2025
Judgment on : 11.03.2025
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present writ application has been preferred praying for setting aside and/or cancel the order dated 26th July, 2017 and directing the respondents to supply the L.R. Map and Land Acquisition Map of the said Mouza and to make joint survey as per the order of the Hon'ble Court.
2
2. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioner for demolition of his construction. It is further prayed that the respondents and/or their subordinates and agents particularly the Prodhan, Jaigaon Gram Panchayet No. 2 P.O. Jaigaon, District-Jalpaiguri being the respondent no. 12 and the Chairman, Jaigaon Development Authority, P.O. Jaigaon, District- Jalpaiguri being the respondent no. 11 be directed to approve and/or sanction the said building plan on the basis of the application dated 23.11.2001.
3. During the pendency of the writ application, L.R. Map and Land Acquisition Map of the concerned Mouza was served upon the petitioners herein and also placed before the Court.
4. The petitioners' case in short is that the petitioner no. 1 purchased part of a plot of land bearing Dag No. 78, Khatian No. 3, measuring about 9 decimals at Mouza Jaigaon, J.L. No. 27 under Jaigaon Police Station from one Anil Agarwal, by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 22.09.1998. The said purchase was made on the basis of record of rights RS/ROR which stood in favour of the vendor Anil Kr. Agarwal. The petitioners then applied for mutation of the said property and also submitted an application for approval of the sanction plan for making a construction on the said plot along with an inspection report.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their prayer for approval of the sanction plan submitted with the Prodhan on 23.11.2001 and 3 the same being forwarded by the Prodhan on 24.11.2001 to the Jaigaon Development Authority, was not acted upon.
6. It is further stated by the petitioners that as there was no response regarding the approval of the said sanction plan the petitioner deemed it to have been granted in his favour.
7. On 17.02.2002 the construction work upto the 1st floor was demolished by a team consisting of the then Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer, Alipurduar, District Land Reforms Officer, Alipurduar, Sub-divisional Officer, Alipurduar, Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kalchini and Block Development Officer, Kalchini with the help of Rapid Action Force along with Bulldozer. It is this demolition that has been challenged by the petitioners.
8. From the materials on record it is evident, that there was no approved sanction plan in respect of the construction made on the property concerned and the same was thus unauthorized and illegal.
9. A written note has been filed by the petitioners.
10. Copy of the L.R. Map has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed.
11. It appears from the map that R.S. Plot no. 78 was divided into six parts and sold to different persons. The road attached has been included in R.S. 78. One of such plot was purchased by the petitioners herein.
12. It appears that a small portion of the part of the plot R.S. 78 purchased by the petitioners herein, is plot no. 87, re-numbered as 95/108. R.S. Plot 78 has now been re-numbered as 95. The portion 4 marked as plot no. 87 is admittedly vested with the Government of West Bengal. The records support the said vesting.
13. The petitioners' case is that they are in possession of the said plot lawfully and that the said construction made by them has been done by following all legal formalities but the same is not supported by the documents in the present case.
14. The petitioners could not produce any documents in support of any plan being sanctioned to make the said construction, which has been demolished by the Government authorities.
15. The petitioners have relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 162 of 2022 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2022, (not applicable as the demolition in this case took place in 2002).
(ii) Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746.
(iii) Common Cause, A Regd. Society vs. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 593.
(iv) Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 599.
16. Considering the submissions of the parties, the materials on record and the judgments relied upon, this Court finds no irregularity in the conduct of the Government Authorities who have lawfully demolished the construction which was made illegally and thus unauthorized, without any sanction plan, on government vested land.
5
17. The writ petition having no merit stands dismissed.
18. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)