IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of state property must adhere to a transparent and equitable process, and the state has an obligation to provide roads for residents, ensuring their fundamental rights to life and free movement.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The dispute is with regard to the alleged illegal grabbing of the thorough fare, recorded in favour of the Government of West Bengal in Khatian No. 1 as ‘rasta’. The writ petitioner is aggrieved that in spite of raising protest to various authorities in writing, the grievance is not redressed. Respondent no. 7, Barabagan Prantik Sangha is the club, which is the alleged perpetrator. Connivance of respondent no. 7/club, with Birbhum Zilla Parishad/respondent no. 4 has also been stated, which allegedly has materialized the illegal project of construction of a club room over the said land. On the other hand, respondent No.7/club has made out a case, that the said land area has duly and in accordance with law, been handed over to it, by respondent no. 4/Birbhum Zila Parishad and as such the respondent no. 7/club, being the lawful owner of the land concerned, has duly utilized the same, by constructing club room over there. The immediate cause of action for filing the present case is non-consideration by the respondent authorities of the notice demanding justice sent on behalf of the present writ petitioner, by virtue of a letter dated 18th January, 2016.

2. In the present case the writ petitioner has prayed for the reliefs inter alia that, the club room over the concerned landed property may be demolished immediately, the respondent authorities may be restrained to encroach upon the said land as well as on adjacent area of the road/footpath. They have also sought for an order that, construction in progress, if any, over the land in dispute, may immediately be stopped.

3. The factual background necessary to be dealt with in this case may be narrated in a nut shell as follows.

4. The land measuring about 360 sq.ft., appertaining to Plot no. 774, in Mouza – Brojergram, JL No. 104, Block – Suri I, is at the core of the dispute. According to the writ petitioner the same is classified and recorded as ‘rasta’ (road) in the Government record of rights. It has been recorded in Khatian No. 1. He says that the same is a thorough fare, being used by uncountable number of people. The petitioner has further stated that the said Plot no. 774 is recorded under Khatian no. 1, in the name of the “Collector, Birbhum”, to possess the same, on behalf of the State of West Bengal. Thus, the petitioner’s case is that the said land belongs to the State and is not transferable. In spite of the same, allegedly, the respondent no.4/Birbhum Zila Parashad, executed a registered deed of sale on 16th August, 1983, suggesting sale of the said plot of land in favour of respondent no. 7/club. The respondent club in turn has constructed a room for use of their organization over there. This has made the writ petitioner aggrieved, the act of the respondents being allegedly illegal and not maintainable.

5. Mr. Datta, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the writ petitioner. His first contention on behalf of the clients is that the land recorded in favour of the State government in Khatian no. 1, in the name of Collector would not be transferable at the hands of the respondent no.4/Birbhum Zila Parishad. Therefore Zila Parishad executing any sale deed in favour of respondent no.7/club, with respect to the said plot of land would be an illegal transaction. The writ petitioners have challenged Zilla Parishad’s right over the said land to enable it to transfer its title, in any way whatsoever. Secondly, according to the writ petitioners, such alleged illegal transfer by the respondent no. 4/Zila Parishad of the said plot of land has adversely and prejudicially affected rights of innumerable member of citizen residing and commuting within the locality, including the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners are aggrieved due to the alleged illegal act of the respondents as their rights as citizens of the country, to life, in terms of free movement, has been jeopardized by such act on the part of the said respondents. Mr. Datta has not failed to