Calcutta High Court rules Panchayat Samitis can auction ferry ghats, overriding Land Manual preference

The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that Panchayat Samitis possess exclusive authority to manage and lease ferry ghats vested in them through e-auction, overriding the preference provisions in the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual. A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee set aside an interim order that had stalled the auction of the Bhandardaha (Humaipur) Ferry Ghat in Murshidabad, allowing the authorities to proceed with the process.

The Dispute: A Tale of Two Cooperatives

The case arose from an e-auction conducted by the Executive Officer of the Hariharpara Panchayat Samiti on June 25, 2026, for the settlement of 13 ferry ghats. The appellant, Nowda Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Limited, emerged as the highest bidder for the Bhandardaha (Humaipur) Ferry Ghat with a bid of ₹4.90 lakh for a three-year lease, and promptly deposited ₹1,63,334 towards the first year's rent.

However, the writ petitioner, Hariharpara Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Ltd., which had also participated in the auction but failed to win, challenged the process before a Single Judge. Relying heavily on Rule 281(iii) of the Land Manual, the petitioner argued that being the sole cooperative society of local boatmen and hereditary Patnis in the area, it was entitled to a direct settlement without any tender or auction. The Single Judge granted an interim stay on the auction, which the successful bidder appealed.

Arguments: Statutory Force vs. Constitutional Empowerment

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Samid Ahammed, contended that the interim order was passed behind its back and that the writ petitioner, as an unsuccessful bidder, had no locus to challenge the auction. He emphasized that a Division Bench of the same court had already held in an earlier matter that the Land Manual did not apply to ferry ghats under panchayat management, and that e-auction was the mandated mechanism for revenue maximization.

Representing the writ petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. Haradhan Banerjee argued that the Land Manual had statutory force under Section 52(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and Rule 28A of the West Bengal Land Reform Rules, 1965. He submitted that Rule 281(iii) was specifically designed to protect poor local boatmen from backward classes, and that the e-auction violated this provision. He further contended that the interim order had been extended multiple times and each extension was a fresh order that required separate challenge.

Court's Analysis: Panchayat Power Prevails

The Division Bench rejected the argument that the Land Manual could override the statutory powers of Panchayat Samitis. The Court observed that once ferry ghats are handed over to panchayati raj institutions, those institutions "would get exclusive power and authority to grant lease in respect of ferry ghats." Referring to Article 243-G of the Constitution , the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 , and Rule 31 of the Panchayat Samiti Administration Rules, 2008 , the Bench held that the Land Manual applies only to lands under the control of the State Government, not to those vested in panchayat bodies.

"Even assuming that the Land Manual has a statutory force , the same would only apply to settlement of lands and ferries exclusively within the control of the State Government," the Court clarified. The Bench further noted that the e-auction process, adopted pursuant to notifications from the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development , ensures transparency, fair competition, and maximization of revenue.

Key Observations

The Court made several sharp observations regarding the conduct of the writ petitioner:

"The writ petitioner took a chance and submitted a bid. Upon being unsuccessful, the writ petition was moved and an interim order was obtained not only behind the back of the successful bidder, but also by misrepresentation ."

On the lack of proper judicial reasoning, the Bench noted:

"The order impugned was passed without reasons as to why the entire e-auction process should not be given effect to, at the instance of an unsuccessful bidder."

The Court also invoked Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, which prohibits injunctions in matters involving public interest:

"In this case, ferry services are provided to villagers of the locality, multiple times a day, to cross the river Jalangi for their business, livelihood, education and other purposes."

The Decision: Interim Stay Set Aside

The Division Bench set aside the interim order dated July 31, 2026, and directed the authorities to proceed on the basis of the auction. It clarified that all steps taken pursuant to the auction would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition. The successful bidder was directed to be added as a party respondent in the writ petition, which will now be heard on merits after exchange of affidavits.

This ruling reinforces the principle that public authorities must adopt transparent processes like e-auction for granting leases, and that preferential provisions in manuals cannot override the constitutional and statutory powers of Panchayati Raj Institutions.