National Green Tribunal
Anjan Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal on 20 January, 2026
Item No.02 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)
Original Application No.171/2025/EZ
Anjan Mukherjee Applicant
Versus
State of West Bengal Respondents
Date of hearing: 20.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: None for the applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Advocate for District Magistrate,
Hooghly (through VC).
ORDER
1. The applicant-Anjan Mukherjee had sent a letter petition by post to this Tribunal which has been treated and registered as Original Application No.171/2025/EZ.
2. In the letter petition treated as Original Application, the applicant raised grievances regarding illegal filling of the water body/pond comprised in plot no. 2142 Khatian No. 30, RS 72, 1.34 out of 3.85 acres 51.71 percent water body situated in Shrikishan mauza, Dasghara Dua Gram Panchayat under Dhaniakhali Police Station, Hooghly.
3. The applicant did not enclose any material available with him in support of the averments made in the letter petition treated as Original Application.
1
4. The applicant did not appear on 23.09.2025 and 27.10.2025 but instead of dismissing the application in default, adjournments were granted and on 22.12.2025, in view of the nature of substantial environmental issues raised, this Tribunal considered it appropriate to seek a report from the District Magistrate, Hooghly before proceeding further on the present application and accordingly vide order dated 22.12.2025 directed the District Magistrate, Hooghly to look into the averments made/grievances raised in the present Original Application, verify the factual position and submit his Fact Finding Report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. In compliance of order dated 22.12.2025, the District Magistrate & Collector, Hooghly has filed report dated 19.01.2026. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under:-
"3. That in compliance to the said Solemn Order a report has been sought for by the Block Development Officer (B.D.O) Dhaniakhali Development Block from the Assistant Director & Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Dhaniakhali, Hooghly vide letter dated 13.01.2026.
Photocopy of the Letter dated 13.01.2026 in which report has been sought for by the Block Development Officer (B.D.O) Dhaniakhali from the Assistant Director & Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Dhaniakhali, Hooghly is annexed herewith and marked with the letter 'A'.
4. That subsequently the Block Development Officer (B.D.O) Dhaniakhali a development block had through Revenue Inspector enquired into the matter and submitted report dated 13.01.2026 to the District Magistrate & Collector, Hooghly which is detailed as below:
The findings are based on physical verification by the R.I. Tamal Das, documentary evidence, and statements obtained from local inhabitants.
Observations and Findings
1. Location:
The subject land is situated in Mouza Krishnapur (Srikishnapur), J.L. No. 30, under Dasghara-II Gram Panchayat, Dhaniakhali Police Station, Hooghly District. It bears Hal Dag No. 2142, Khatian No. 30, RS 72, with a total recorded area of 3.85 acres.2
2. Local usage/history:
As per local enquiries, a portion of the land within the said Dag No. 2142 was commonly known as "Chandni Pukur".
3. Land Filling Allegation:
On local enquiry it was revealed that in early 2025, some earth filling activities were undertaken on the area by the recorded owner(s), including Shri Hemanta Kumar Das, son of Kanailal Das, resident of Shankarpur, and/or his transferee(s). This was reportedly done despite opposition from local inhabitants. No prior permission for such filling appears to have been obtained from competent authorities, as per available records.
4. Classification / Land Record:
Notwithstanding the above local description of prior use as a pond, as per land record, Hal Dag No. 2142 presently stands recorded as "Bastu" (residential/homestead category), and not as "pond/jalashoy".
5. Present physical condition of the site:
At present, the relevant portion of land is lying at a lower level than the surrounding land approximately about 2 to 2.5 feet below the adjacent land level. It has also been stated by local residents that drainage water from neighbouring houses used to accumulate in that low-lying portion earlier. However, no accumulated water was observed. No ongoing filling or construction activities were observed during the visit.
This report is submitted solely based on the enquiry conducted and without prejudice to any further actions or determinations by higher authorities or the Hon'ble NGT. Should additional information or clarifications be required, the undersigned remains available for the same.
The following documents have also been enclosed with the report:
1. Copy of Report submitted by the BL & LRO vide Memo No. 96/BL & LRO/DNK/2026 dated 13.01.2026.
2. Extract of Banglarbhumi LR Parcha for Dag No. 2142.
3. Copy of Site Inspection Photographs.
Photocopy of the Report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Dhaniakhali development block to the District Magistrate & Collector, Hooghly is annexed herewith and marked with the letter 'B'.
5. That the statements made in paragraph 1 is true to my knowledge and paragraphs 2 to 4, are based on information derived from the record and which I believe to be true and rest thereof are my humble submission before this Hon'ble Tribunal."
6. The applicant has not appeared before this Tribunal physically or through V.C. even today.
3
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the District Magistrate, Hooghly and gone through the material on record carefully.
8. In the present case, the applicant has not produced any cogent material in support of his claim as to the land in question being water body.
9. In the revenue record (at pages no 37-40 which are in vernacular and pages no. 41-49 which are in English) the land in question bearing Dag no. 2142 (total area 3.85 acres) is recorded as 'Vastu' residential and at serial no. 5631, Hemanta Kumar Das is mentioned as 'rait' (owner).
10. It may be observed here that as per Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, permission from the Collector of the District is mandatory for change of area, character of land or conversion of the same for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously used or for alteration in the mode of use of such land. There is nothing on record to show change of the character/user of the land in question (recorded in the revenue record as 'residential') as 'water body', with permission from Collector of the District and in the absence of any such permission, the land in question is liable to be treated as 'residential'.
11. Even though in his report the District Magistrate, Hooghly has mentioned that the land in question was commonly known as 'Chandni Pukur' but such local description as 'water body' is not supported by the revenue record. In his report, the District Magistrate, Hooghly has mentioned that drainage water from neighbouring houses used to accumulate in the low-lying portion of the land in question but the District Magistrate, Hooghly has mentioned that no accumulated water 4 was observed and that no on-going filling or construction activities were observed during the visit.
12. We are of the considered view that mere water logging due to land in question being low-lying area does not convert the nature thereof as 'water body' in the absence of any dedicated user as water body with permission of the District Magistrate, Hooghly for change of the nature and user of the land in question.
13. It may be observed here that the applicant has not claimed the land in question to be multi-ownership tank for pisciculture warranting applicability of Section 8 of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 for taking over management and control thereof by the competent authority and transferring the same to some other persons for proper utilisation thereof.
14. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the land in question cannot be said to be 'water body' so as to warrant passing of intervention orders by this Tribunal for restoration/protection thereof as 'water body'.
15. In view of the above, the present Original Application is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Afroz Ahmad, EM January 20th, 2026 Original Application No.171/2025/EZ R 5