Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mayna Chowdhury And Anr vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 11 July, 2019
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
11.7.2019
KC(11)
W.P.L.R.T. 38 of 2019
Mayna Chowdhury and Anr.
-versus-
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Uttiya Roy,
Mr. Ashok Sadhukhan,
Mr. Anirban Ghosh.......................For the petitioners.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Ms. Sreelekha Bhattacharya..........For the respondents.
O.A. 3863 of 2012 (LRTT) filed by the petitioners before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) has been dismissed by it's 1st Bench by a judgment and order dated 29th November, 2018. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.
Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears that the petitioners are the owners of two pieces of land comprised in plot no. 4937 in mouza Namduara, Raghunathpur, Purulia, measuring 46 decimals and 13 decimals, totaling to 59 decimals, which are recorded in the land records as "Goria". We are informed that "Goria" in revenue terms means 'depressed land'. The petitioners intended to convert such land, which is classified as "Goria", to 'Bastu' for the purpose of construction activities thereon. Perceiving that without creating a compensatory water body the necessary permission for conversion may not be granted, the petitioners sought for permission to create a water body on two pieces of land 2 belonging to them comprised in plot no. 2345, in the self-same mouza, measuring areas of 13 decimals + 53 decimals = 66 decimals. The said plots of land are classified as "Baid". Permission was granted by the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Raghunathpur, Purulia by memoranda dated 5th January, 2012 and 9th January, 2012. In terms of the conversion that was permitted, the lands in plot no. 2345 measuring 66 decimals in all have been converted into a water body. It appears from a letter dated 27th March, 2012 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Purulia (hereafter the assistant director) that the petitioners having created a compensatory water body on 66 decimals of land, there could be no objection at his end as per Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act to provide permission to the petitioners for filling up the land measuring 59 decimals in plot no. 4937. However, permission for conversion of plot no. 4937 from "Goria" to "Bastu" was not accorded by the respondents. This resulted in presentation of the original application before the tribunal under Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunals Act, 1997.
A bare reading of the impugned judgment and order reveals a very technical approach adopted by the members of the tribunal while dismissing the original application by their separate but concurrent opinions. It is found that the petitioners had not filled up a particular form (Form 1B) accompanied by an 3 affidavit and, therefore, the members of the tribunal were of the view that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.
The fact that the petitioners intended to fill up plot no. 4937 upon providing for a compensatory water body in plot no. 2345 is discernible from memo dated 27th March, 2012 of the assistant director. If indeed certain formalities had not been complied with by the petitioners, nothing prevented the respondents to call upon the petitioners to comply with such formalities. However, merely on the ground that Form 1B and the requisite affidavit have not been submitted and dismissing the original application without reserving the liberty to the petitioners to cure the defects, in our opinion, was not justified. This provides sufficient ground for us to interfere to the extent indicated below.
The entire issue is remanded to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purulia (hereafter the DL&LRO). He shall first make an inspection of the water body created in plot no. 2345 and satisfy himself that the same is still a water body. After such satisfaction is recorded, the petitioners shall be called upon to fill up Form 1B together with an affidavit, if at all the need therefor exists. If the affidavit, in terms, requires an undertaking to create a compensatory water body, which has already come into existence, the same need not be insisted upon as if to complete a ritual. However, if the affidavit is otherwise relevant, the petitioners shall be duty bound to file the same. The need to fill up Form 1B too may not arise if the DL&LRO is personally satisfied about 4 the present status of the water body comprised in plot no. 2345. The DL&LRO thereafter shall ascertain whether any other statutory formalities are required to be complied with by the petitioners or not; if so, appropriate instruction in that behalf may be issued. Should there be any necessity to comply with any other formalities and upon compliance of the same by the petitioners, the DL&LRO shall proceed to allow the prayer for conversion of plot no. 4937 from "Goria" to "Bastu". The entire exercise shall be completed by the DL&LRO within four months from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If for any valid reason the DL&LRO is disabled to grant permission for conversion, as prayed for by the petitioners, they shall be granted an opportunity of hearing followed by a reasoned order.
With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment and order, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order for costs.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA,J.)