Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The District Magistrate, Birbhum has filed a report in this Court in which it has been mentioned that the construction work is being carried by Arsuday Projects and Infrastructure Private Limited, respondent no.6, on the land which was originally classified as 'Danga' measuring 0.39 acres. The respondent no.6 has dubiously sought for sanction of plan and permission of construction from the Prodhan, Ruppur Gram Panchayat as per proviso to Rule 28 of the West Bengal Panchayat Administration Rules, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2004', dated 9th August, 2006 for construction of building structure in Panchayat area under the Development Authority whereas the 'Panchayat Samity' is the appropriate authority to sanction plan. No such sanction has been granted by Panchayat Samity. Ruppur Gram Panchayat has no authority to sanction building plan and give permission for construction. The District Magistrate has further submitted in the report that Executive Officer, SSDA vide Memo.No.SSDA/35/B-2/2012 dated 28.2.2012 has given No Objection Certificate to the Director of respondent no.6 for conversion of land in question from 'Danga' to 'Bastu' and subsequently, D.L. & L.R.O., Birbhum has given permission for conversion under sub section 2(c) of Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on 9.1.2013. The District Magistrate has further submitted that Prodhan, Ruppur Gram Panchayat issued sanction for construction to the respondent no.6 much before issuance of no objection certificate by the Executive Officer, SSDA and permission for conversion of land was granted by the concerned D.L. & L.R.O. It is further submitted by the District Magistrate in the report that construction raised by the respondent no.6 is unauthorized and illegal. It is also apparent that one extra floor has been added using the natural undulating topography of 'Khoai' land. From the front view, it appears as three storied building but from the back view, it can be seen as a four storied building. The construction has been raised illegally without valid sanction and permission from the appropriate authority and SSDA has not taken appropriate action to stop illegal construction. It is further submitted by the District Magistrate in the report about the illegal conversion of land from 'Danga' to 'Bastu'. Clarification has been sought by him from the Executive Officer of SSDA, regarding the basis of issuance of No Objection Certificate. Action has also been initiated for illegal conversion of the land from 'Danga' to 'Bastu' as per communication, being Annexure VI, filed along with the report. On 23.7.2013, the District Magistrate has directed the Executive Officer, SSDA and Executive Officer, Bolpur- Sriniketan Panchayat Samity to lodge complaints with Bolpur Police Station against the Directors and Proprietors of the respondent no.6 for unauthorised construction.

Other facts have also been denied.

The respondent no.6 has filed exception to the Report of the District Magistrate, wherein reliance has been placed upon Rule 19 of the Rules of 2004.

It is contended that permissions from Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishad have been duly obtained and under the amended Rules of 2004. Entire file of the plan and documents was submitted to the Birbhum Zilla Parishad for vetting of the plan and documents. Thereafter pursuant to the communication dated 3.11.2011 of Birbhum Zilla Parishad, Pradhan of Ruppur Gram Panchayat vide Memo dated 5.11.2011 had sent the sanctioned plan duly vetted by the District Engineer, Birbhum Zilla Parishad. It is wrong to contend that conversion of the land used from Danga to Bastu was not done properly. Ruppur Gram Panchayat issued N.O.C. on 29.12.2009 on the application made by the respondent no.6 to issue N.O.C. On 31.12.2009 the respondent no.6 had applied for conversion of classification of land with D.L. & L.R.O., Bolpur as per the application Annexure 'R8' to the affidavit. Application was also filed before the SSDA for issuing N.O.C. for conversion of land from Danga to Bastu, which was accorded and N.O.C. was issued by the SSDA on 28.2.2012. Land use in development plan is shown as residential. The order was passed under the Act of 1955 by D.L. & L.R.O on 09.11.2013. It is denied that the allegation that one additional floor has been constructed is incorrect. Valuation of the property is Rupee One Crore Eighty Lakhs. Building had duly been completed by 31.7.2013. There is no definition of "Khoai" land in the Act of 1955. In the record of rights the land had been recorded as Danga, i.e. highly arable fertile agricultural land. The Respondent No. 6 has also executed deed of conveyance for some flats and some agreements have also been duly entered into.

The petitioners have filed rejoinder also reiterating the facts mentioned in the petition and denying the facts mentioned by the respondent nos. 3 and 6.

Shri Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that construction in question is illegal. It was submitted that Gram Panchayat or Zilla Parishad was not the competent authority to grant permission to raise the construction and Panchayat Samity was the competent authority which has not accorded any permission to raise the construction in the area in question. It was also submitted that land in question has developed as 'Khoai' which is rare product of the nature though the land was recorded as 'Danga' and at the time when permission for construction was granted by Gram Panchayat or Zilla Parishad, there was no conversion of Danga land to Bastu land. On Danga land permission to raise construction could not have been granted. It was also submitted that permission to raise the construction was granted by Gram Panchayat on 05.11.2011, whereas NOC has been granted by the S.S.D.A in February, 2012 and D.L & L.R.O has ordered the conversion of the land in January, 2013. Before conversion of the land, construction had been raised which was wholly unauthorized and that too based on permission accorded by incompetent authority. It was also submitted that the sanction granted was illegal and void. It was further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court with respect to Santiniketan itself in the case of Sushanta Tagore (supra), the construction is wholly unauthorized and the sanction granted was contemptuous to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to S.S.D.A and other authorities. They have not taken care to apply or refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which "Khoai" land has been ordered to be preserved in Santiniketan and it has been ordered that there shall be no further construction by way of multi storeyed buildings in the area of Santiniketan. Learned counsel has also submitted that the land on which construction has been raised is not only 70 meters away from the wild life sanctuary but is in the deer park of Santiniketan which is adjacent to the wild life sanctuary at Ballavpur. For Ballavpur Sanctuary notification was issued under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in July 1977. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in view of the fact that under the Act of 1979, Notification No. 4655-For. Dated 11.07.1977 (Annexure R/2) has been issued by the State Government notifying the area i.e. Mouja Ballavpur within the jurisdiction of S.S.D.A requiring preservation and conservation for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild lives or its environment, no permission to raise the construction could have been granted. It was also submitted that there is no approach road available to reach the building in question, which has been illegally raised. The ingress and egress is from the area of Visva Bharati campus there is no direct access to the P.W.D road, the building cannot be stretched through Visva Bharati campus in Siksha Bhavan, Science Departments of the University and even closer to boundary of Visva Bharati. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that unauthorized construction around wild life sanctuary is not permissible. He has also submitted that the District Magistrate as well as Pollution Control Board have opined that this is 'Khoai' land on which the construction has been raised. It was also submitted that the State Government, considering the fact that it is to be declared as World Heritage has formed a State Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary vide Notification dated 18th January, 2011 Annexure R/4 filed along with affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no.4. Permission has not been obtained from the aforesaid Committee to raise the construction in question.

It is also not in dispute that construction had been completed by the middle of 2012. On query being made to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6, it was stated that the structure of building had been constructed by the middle of 2012. By that time the land had not been ordered to be converted from Danga to Bastu. Thus, it is apparent that even before the conversion of the land, construction activity of the building had been undertaken which was clearly an unauthorised act. No such permission to raise building could have been granted before conversion of the land from Danga to Bastu. Danga land is not for the purpose of construction. Danga land is highly arable agricultural land. Thus, the permission granted by Gram Panchayat after being vetted by Zila Parishad on 5th November, 2011 was illegal and void. Before conversion of the land no such permission could have been accorded. Apart from that Gram Panchayat was not competent to accord the sanction for the reasons to follow.