SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
Nemai Chandra Kundu & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Chairman, Arambagh Municipality & Ors. - Respondents
W.P No. 23645(W) of 2017 With CAN 10034 of 2017, 186 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2018

Important Points

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court held the petitioners' claim regarding the plantation of saplings preventing obstruction of views and use of the highway could not be substantiated based on the report of the Special Officer.

Subject

Civil Law - Property Law

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : .
WEST BENGAL HIGHWAYS ACT : .

Headnote

West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 - Plantation of Saplings - Section 35 - The court held that the petitioners' claim regarding the plantation of saplings preventing obstruction of views and use of the highway could not be substantiated based on the report of the Special Officer. The court also directed the Municipality to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard on the restriction of construction based on the plan issued in his favor.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the authorities from planting forest trees/saplings in front of their plots of land and to nurture the same. The petitioners alleged illegal threats and nepotism by the Assistant Executive Engineer and challenged the actions of the authorities under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' claim regarding the plantation of saplings could not be substantiated based on the report of the Special Officer. The court also directed the Municipality to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard on the restriction of construction based on the plan issued in his favor.

Issues: The issues involved the alleged illegal plantation of saplings by the authorities and the Municipality's notice restricting construction based on the plan issued in the petitioner's favor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' claim regarding the plantation of saplings preventing obstruction of views and use of the highway could not be substantiated based on the report of the Special Officer. The court also directed the Municipality to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard on the restriction of construction based on the plan issued in his favor.

Final Decision: The court directed the Municipality to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard on the restriction of construction based on the plan issued in his favor.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu, Mr. Uttam Kumar De, Ms. Darshana Mazumder, Mr. Insranil Chandra
For the Respondents: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Mr. Tapas Kumar Adhikari
For the Municipality : Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Mr. Arindam Deb Roy … Ld. Special Officer

JUDGMENT :

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Nemai Chandra Kundu and others praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondent Police authorities and more specifically the respondent no. 11, that is, the Inspector-in-charge of Arambagh Police Station, Hooghly and the Municipal authorities, that is, the respondent no. 1 to forthwith restrain the Executive Engineer (P.W.D), Hooghly Construction Division at Chinsurah being the respondent no. 4, his men, agents, servants, assigns from continuing with planting forest trees/saplings in front of petitioners' plots of land and to nurture the same.

2. Mr. Basu, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that necessary pleadings have been made by the petitioners in paragraph 34 of the writ petition which is set out below:—

“34. The plantation programme is illegal. The attitude and action of Mr. Niranjan Bhar, the Assistant Executive Engineer in continuing his mission of vendetta, illegal threats and nepotism are penal in nature and he may be suitably dealt with for his illegal acts. The said Mr. Bhar has further threatened in the open that if the saplings are in any way damaged, the petitioners would be proceeded with. The said statement is heinous and it seems that the said Mr. Bhar has his well tuned mind to involve the petitioners into false cases.”

3. In the next paragraph, that is, paragraph 35, the petitioners have alleged about the action of the authorities under West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 which is set out below:—

“35. The West Bengal Highways act, 1964 bit legislation and the same for the maintenance and control of, prevention of encroachments thereon and a removal of encroachments therefrom, and matters connected therewith. Nowhere in the said act doesn't permit for plantation of saplings of forest plants which prevents obstruction of views and prevents use of the highway. Forest tree saplings cannot be granted under any circumstances and those forming tall trees but in the present case the same has been done so that the petitioner business can be destroyed being not in view of the public and the roots would soon spread underneath the building and destroy the plaint of the said building. It is strange as to how an engineer can become a forest officer while discharging his duties under the provisions of the West Bengal highways Act.”

4. In the writ petition the petitioner has annexed a letter dated 14th June, 2017 which is a notice to remove encroachment. In absence of any prayer in the writ petition and, although, no supporting pleading has been made with regard to such alleged encroachment upon the petitioner's land, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter dated 14th June, 2017 which is a notice to remove encroachment being Annexure ‘P1’ to the writ petition.

5. While the writ petition was moved on 21st December, 2017, Mr. Basu, appearing for the writ petitioners, drawing attention of the Court to the aforesaid notice dated 14th June, 2017 submitted that the constructions on the petitioner's land are being demolished by the P.W.D authorities and thereafter, the said authorities were making plantation on the petitioner's land as pointed out in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the writ petition. On the basis of the urgency and the gravity of the matter this Court, by order dated 21st December, 2017, appointed a Special Officer to make a physical inspection of the land in question where the State authorities had allegedly made demolition of the petitioner's constructions illegally on the strength of the notice dated 14th June, 2017 and where the Executive Engineer was making plantation of saplings of forest plants. This Court also passed an interim order to the effect :

“… Till such time the report comes, the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Hooghly Construction Sub-Division is restrained from acting any further on the basis of notice dated 14th June, 2017 so far the petitioners' plot of land is in question being Dag 239 and 229 and J.L No. 34 Mo















1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top