Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Khandakar Jahirul Islam & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 September, 2019
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
25. 09 . 2019
BP W.P. 7090 (W) of 2019
Sl 18
Khandakar Jahirul Islam & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Robiul Islam
.. for the petitioners.
Mr. Kalimuddin Mondal
Mr. Bipin Ghosh
..for the State.
Mr. Rafiqul Islam
..for the private
respondent nos. 8 and 9.
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned notice dated 12th February, 2019 issued by the Prodhan, Dwarka Gram Panchayat, Birbhum, the respondent no.7.
Mr. Robiul Islam, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners lodged complaint before the Prodhan, Dwarka Gram Panchayat, Birbhum, the respondent no.7 regarding the unauthorised construction carrying on by the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 without having any sanctioned plan. After receiving such complaint the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat directed the private respondents to visit the office of the Prodhan 2 and settle the issue. Mr. Islam further submits that it is admitted facts that without having any sanctioned plan the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 have been carrying on unauthorised construction at the premises in question. Therefore, the Prodhan is under obligation to take step for demolition of that unauthorised construction. Unfortunately, without taking any step for demolition of the unauthorised construction the Prodhan has given notice to the private respondents to come and negotiate the matter.
Mr. Rafiqul Islam, learned advocate for the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 the Prodhan should not take any decision.
I find that it is admitted fact that the private respondents without having any sanctioned plan have been carrying on unauthorised construction. The Prodhan instead of taking any step for demolition of unauthorised construction asked the private respondents to stop construction work and negotiate the matter at the office of the Prodhan. In my considered view, the Prodhan cannot direct the 3 private respondent nos. 8 and 9 to settle the issue when it is admitted facts that the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 without having any sanctioned plan have been carrying on unauthorised construction. Therefore, the Prodhan is under obligation for demolition of the unauthorised construction in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the Prodhan failed to do so.
Considering the submissions as advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, I direct the Prodhan, Dwarka Gram Panchayat, Birbhum, the respondent no.7 to consider and take decision in accordance with law in respect of the petitioners' representation dated 12th February, 2019 within six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representative and the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 or their authorised representative and thereafter communicate the decision to the parties within one week.
Needless to mention, if it is found in the hearing that the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 have been carrying on unauthorised construction at 4 the premises in question then the Prodhan is directed to take step in accordance with law for demolition of the said unauthorised construction within four weeks thereafter.
Let the report as submitted by Mr. Kalimuddin Mondal, learned advocate for the State be kept on record.
With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.
( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 5