SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Cal) 334

High Court Of Calcutta
V. S. Sirpurkar, CJ. And Aniruddha Bose, J.
LOKNATH PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 13257 (W) Of 2004
Decided On : 06/09/2006

Advocates Appeared:
AMLAN KUMAR MUKHERJI, Indrajit Dasgupta, PROBAL MUKHERJI, Rajat Dutta

Construction on a water body measuring 5 cottahs or more without obtaining the necessary sanctions is illegal under Section 17A(1) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Headnote:

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON POND - WEST BENGAL INLAND FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993 - SECTION 17A(1) - WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ACT - SECTION 23 - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

A public interest litigation was filed alleging that a pond in the village was being illegally filled up and construction was taking place on the pond by the respondents. The petitioners relied on Section 17A(1) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993, which prohibits the conversion of water areas measuring 5 cottahs or more into solid land for construction purposes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had constructed ten shops covering an area of 0.025 acres of land with a guard wall by constructing pillars within the guard wall without obtaining any sanction. The court also found that the respondents had not joined the Panchayat, Fisheries Department, or the government as parties to the suit in which an injunction was granted, and therefore, the injunction was only against the private defendants.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had obtained the necessary sanctions for the construction? 2. Whether the construction was in violation of Section 17A(1) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the construction was made in total derogation of rules and regulations and without obtaining any sanction. The court also held that the Fisheries Department shall complete their proceedings in pursuance of section 17a of the West bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993 under which the notices have been given to the respondents and the proceedings shall be completed as early as possible but not beyond six months.

Final Decision: The court directed the District Magistrate to immediately inquire into the matter and take action to stop the illegal construction if it was found that the construction was not made in pursuance of any sanctioned plan. The court also directed the Fisheries Department to complete their proceedings under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993 within six months. The local police were directed to cooperate with the Panchayat and the District Magistrate in taking any action, including demolition action.

V. S. SIRPURKAR, CJ.

( 1 ) IN this public interest litigation, the petitioners have come up with a plea that a pond in the village, allegedly owned by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 is not only being illegally filled up but a huge construction thereupon is coming up at the instance of those respondents.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petition, the said pond has an area of about 1 acre 53 satak and all through the year, the pond retains the water. The petitioners point out that originally some other persons were the owners of the said tank along with other contiguous land. However, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 became the owners by virtue of a sale deed few years ago. The petitioners complain that from 28th of May, 2003 the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 started construction activity by making pillars in the tank. There are some photographs filed along with the writ petition which show substantial construction activity on the bank of the said tank. It is the contention of the petitioners that though they protested against the said illegal work, however, no heed was paid. It is also suggested that a representation was made on the 3rd of June, 2003 before the Pradhan of Simulpur Gram Panchayat urging him to take administrative steps. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that at their instance a notice dated 11th of June, 2003, was also issued from the office of the Block Land and Land -Reforms Officer, Gaighata directing the respondents to stop construction, but the respondents did not pay any heed to that notice. It is then pointed out that the construction was going on repeatedly and that the petitioners approached the Additional District magistrate and the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, North 24 parganas, Barasat inviting their attention to the illegal activity. They further pointed out that ultimately an application under section 144 of the code of Criminal Procedure was also taken out and on that application, a restraint order was issued against the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 restraining them from proceeding with the construction activity. However, in spite of this the construction activity had not stopped and, therefore, they have also filed an FIR on 21st of July, 2003. The petitioner relied on section 17a (1) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1993; wherein it is suggested that no water area measuring 5 cottahs or 0. 035 hectare or more, which retains water for a minimum period of six months in a year can be converted into solid land for the purpose of construction of any building or otherwise. On these grounds, the petitioners ultimately chose to come before this Court by way of public interest litigation, praying, inter alia : (1) A writ of/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, its men, agent, subordinates to take appropriate steps towards preservation of the water-body measuring 1 (one)acre 53 (fifty-three) satak situated in Mouza No. 85, Dag No. 1757 within the area of Simulpur, p. O. Thakurnagar, P. S. Gaighata, District North 24-Parganas without any further delay and to take steps in accordance with law for preservation of any further conversion of the said pond forthwith; (b) A writ of/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the- respondent, its men, agents, subordinates to restore the pond and its embankment measuring 1 (one)acre 53 (fifty-three) satak situated in Mouza No. 85, dag NO. 1757 within the ,area of Simulpur, P. O. Thakurnagar, P. S. Gaighata, District 24-Parganas in question at the earliest.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition was opposed by way affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. They, inter alia, plead that they are not carrying out any construction activities on the land that they had purchased from one Murari Mohan Saha and Bharati Mohan Saha. It is reiterated that the respondents, thereafter, applied for the sanctioned plan for construction of a shop room on the bank of the tank and accordingly Simulpur Gram panchayat sanctioned th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top