Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Kalinath Sasmal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 30 January, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
-: 1 : -
15
30.01. 2014
rrc
W. P. 2613 (W) of 2014
(Kalinath Sasmal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
(A s s i g n e d)
Mr. Pratik Dhar
Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
Mr. Samir Halder
Mr. Pappu Adhikary
......For the petitioner
Mr. Jahar Lal De
Mr. Shamim Ul-Bari
.......For the State
Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder
Mr. Debasish Ghosh
Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri
.....For the respdt. nos. 11 and 12
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of plots of land
bearing dag nos. 2, 1665, 1667 and 1669, fully described in
paragraph 2 of the writ petition. He complains that Contai
Municipality and its officers assembled thereat with an excavator at
about 11.30 p.m. of 20th January, 2014 and started demolishing
the boundary wall encircling the aforesaid plots of land. The
petitioner on the intervening night of 20th and 21st had lodged a
complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Contai Police Station, vide G.
D. Entry No. 1144 dated 21st January, 2014 complaining of illegal
demolition. It was followed up by a further complaint dated 22nd
January, 2014. Despite such complaints, no action was taken by
the police and allegedly, demolition of the boundary walls had been
resumed in the morning of 21st in the presence of police personnel.
-: 2 : -
According to Mr. Dhar, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, the incident complained of is a brazen act of violation of
the petitioner's right to property guaranteed by Article 300A of the
Constitution. He has prayed for appropriate protection from the
Court.
Mr. Majumder, learned advocate represents the Contai
Municipality. It is his categorical assertion that Contai Municipality
has not indulged in the acts complained of in the writ petition. It is
further submitted by him that the so-called miscreants named in
the complaints of the petitioner are in no way related to the
Municipality either as councillor or staff.
Mr. De, learned advocate represents the State respondents.
According to him, on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, Contai P.S. Case No. 36/14 dated 26th January, 2014 under Sections 341/447/427/506/34, I.P.C. has been registered and that investigation is in progress. In course of investigation, the miscreants named in the complaints of the petitioner were sought to be interrogated, but they have been absconding.
Presently, apart from the petitioner, neither the Municipality nor the State has laid any claim in respect of the aforesaid plots of land. The records of right annexed to the writ petition support the petitioner's contention that he is the recorded owner of the aforesaid plots.
-: 3 : -
If at all the version of the petitioner of illegal demolition of the boundary wall is correct, it must be ascertained by the police on investigation as to who are the culprits responsible for such demolition. Since investigation is in progress, developments shall be reported to Court on Thursday (6th February, 2014) when the writ petition shall be listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.
The Officer-in-Charge, Contai Police Station shall ensure that apart from the petitioner and his family members, no-one else is allowed entry into the said plots of land or to carry on any developmental work without obtaining leave of the Court.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur with a prayer for posting of police guards for protection of his property. If such an application is received, the said superintendent shall consider the same in accordance with Regulations 666 and 669 of the Police Regulations of Bengal. The application of the petitioner must be considered and disposed by the said superintendent within 24 hours of its receipt.
Photocopy of the order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to all the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Dipankar Datta, J.)