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

2021 Supreme(Cal) 521

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
Indian Institute of Legal Studies – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 8 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Joyjit Choudhury, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Ajay Singhal
For the Respondent: Mr. Subir Kumar Saha, Mr. Momenur Rahman

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an application must be supported by proper reasons and must be in accordance with the existing law.

Headnote:

Land Use Compatibility Certificate - College Construction - The West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, Section 2(5), Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samity Administration) Rules, 2008 - The court discussed the provisions of the 1979 Act, the definition of 'commerce' under Section 2(5), Section 4C of the 1955 Act, and Rules 65, 74, and 75 of the 2008 Panchayat Rules. The court highlighted the power of the Planning and Development Authority under Section 13 of the 1979 Act and the time limits specified in Rule 75 of the 2008 Panchayat Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a college, filed a writ petition against the rejection of its application for approval of a plan for installation of a lift by the Matigara Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner had obtained various certificates and permissions for the construction of the college building.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was unjustified as the petitioner had complied with the necessary formalities and had obtained the required permissions and certificates for the construction.

Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioner's application for approval of a plan for installation of a lift, the compliance with land use conversion requirements, and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application was without proper reasons and set aside the impugned order. The court also directed the concerned authorities not to take any steps contrary to the existing law pertaining to the approval of the petitioner's application.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The concerned authorities were directed not to take any steps contrary to the existing law pertaining to the approval of the petitioner's application. No costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 24th March, 2020 passed by the Matigara Panchayat Samiti by which the application of the petitioner, for approval of a plan for installation of a lift, in the Petitioner College, was rejected.

2. The petitioner is a college located at Siliguri imparting legal education. The petitioner commenced its academic session sometime in 2010 in a building constructed in a land sanctioned by the Siliguri-Jalpaiguri Development Authority (the ‘said Authority’) constituted under The West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 (the ‘1979 Act’). The case of the petitioner is that at the time of sanction of the relevant plan for construction of the building, the said Authority was the nodal agency for according sanction to plans for buildings within its jurisdiction. The petitioner complied with all formalities including payment and development charges etc. for construction of the building and commenced its academic sessions thereafter.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner places a “Land Use Compatibility Certificate’ dated 6th November, 2008 issued by the said Authority to the Trust governing the petitioner stating that the change of use of land from ‘Residential’ to ‘Law College (Educational)’ purpose has been found to be compatible to the predominant land use and as per the land use map prepared and published by the Authority under Section 29(1) of the 1979 Act. Counsel also places Section 2(5) of the 1979 Act which defines “commerce” as the carrying on of any trade, business, profession, sale or exchange of goods etc. and includes the running of, with a view to making profit, hospitals, nursing homes, infirmaries, educational institutions, hotels, restaurants etc. Counsel further places Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (the ‘1955 Act’) which provides for permission for change of area, character or use of land and sub-section 2 thereof for the conversion of use of land. Section 2(7) of the said Act is shown for the definition of ‘land’ which includes, among other descriptions, tank-fishery, homestead, benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Counsel places the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samity Administration) Rules, 2008 and particularly Rules 65 and 74 thereof which provide for permission for construction of building or structure and the manner of processing applications. Counsel places particular emphasis on Rule 75 which specifies the right of an applicant if the permission or refusal of the Authority is not communicated within a specified time limit. Counsel prays that the impugned order dated 24th March, 2020 passed by the Executive Officer, Matigara Panchayat Samity, Darjeeling be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents objects to the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the Authority which granted permission under the 1979 Act is not the proper Authority for certifying change of land use. Counsel submits that the petitioner could not have proceeded to construct a building for commercial purposes without the proper documentation for conversion of land and that the compatibility certificate is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 4C of the 1955 Act.

5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the relevant documents, it may be useful to note a few of the facts, in brief. It should be mentioned that certain documents were handed up in court today, copies of which were also made over to counsel representing the State respondents. Since both parties were apprised of the documents, the facts which are to follow refer to the said documents.

6. The petitioner made an application for conversion of land from the schedule of land (Danga & Rupni) to non-agricultural land for setting up a College. On 2nd December, 2008 the said Authority issue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top