The central legal point established in the judgment is that a lawful land conversion under the WBLR Act can bar criminal proceedings under the same act, and the absurdity of allegations in the FIR can lead to quashing of the entire proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned proceeding being Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 746/18 dated 15.05.2018 under section 4 D of West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 (WBLR Act) read with section 17 of Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipore, South 24 Parganas.

2. Petitioner contended that petitioner purchased 4 Cottahs of Bastu land along with 300 Sq. ft. incomplete building at Mouza-Sonarpur, J.L. No. 39, in R.S. Dag No. 1747 corresponding to R.S. Khatian No. 616 in the year 2017.

3. Said 4 Cottahs of land which he purchased from one Archna Mondal was previously 'Sali' in character but concerned B.L. & L.R.O., Sonarpur in view of a conversion proceeding initiated by petitioner's vendor was pleased to convert character of said land from Sali to Bastu and issued certificate of conversion U/S 4C of W.B.LR. Act vide Memo No. 41/68/BL/SNP/dated 09.01.2017. The aforesaid R.S. Dag. No. 1747 is a plot comprising of 45 decimal of land. Although in R.S. record of rights the entire 45 decimal of land stands recorded as 'Sali' but physically a pond comprising of 8 Cottahs of land exists adjacent to petitioner's 4 Cottahs of Bastu land. Municipal authority has also recorded petitioner's purchased 4 Cottahs of land as Bastu which is reflected in mutation certificate issued by Municipal authority 4. Petitioner further submits out of his 4 Cottahs of land 1/2 Cottah of Bastu land got eroded into the said adjacent pond and for which petitioner wanted to construct a guard wall with bamboo and tin, in order to protect his Bastu land from further erosion.

5. A club in the locality demanded huge money from the petitioner and also from petitioner's vendor. They denied to pay money to club and for which club members raised objection and petitioner was compelled to stop the construction of the guard wall. Subsequently petitioner received a notice under section 41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) dated 15.05.2018 and came to know that aforesaid criminal proceeding has been initiated with an allegation that a mass petition was submitted to the office of Rajpur Sonarpur municipality and chairman without perusing his own record that the 4 Cottahs of land purchased by petitioner has been recorded by the municipal authority as 'Bastu', forwarded said letter to the Sonarpur police Station and the aforesaid case was initiated by police. Although adjacent 8 Cottah of pond that responsible for the erosion of petitioners Bastu Land, is not the land of the petitioner and it belongs to some other person, but police authority selectively sent notice under section 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, which the petitioner complied. The investigating agency submitted charge-sheet on 25.03.2019 in the aforesaid proceeding under section 17 of Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 reserving a liberty to submit supplementary chargesheet after receiving report from BLLRO Sonarpur.

6. Mr. Duke Banerjee, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that filing of the charge-sheet under section 17 A of the Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 is blatently illegal because conversion under section 4 C of WBLR Act has been lawfully done in connection with said 4 Cottahs purchased land and proceeding under section 4D of the WBLR Act is strictly prohibited under WBLR Act, as said purchased 4 Cottahs of land already settled as Bastu complying formalities under section 4 C. He further contended that section 17 A of Inland Fisheries Act is not applicable in this case as the land in question is comprising of only 4 Cottahs of Bastu Land and section 17 A contemplates over an water area including embankment covering 5 Cottah or more. Here petitioner purchased Bastu Land and not water area, measuring only 4 Cottahs and out of which 1/2 Cottah got eroded into the adjacent pond. Accordingly no case stands against the petitioner as petitioner's purchased 4 Cottahs of land has already been sett