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

2024 Supreme(Cal) 494

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Sk. Abu Abbasuddin – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A.No.7452 of 2019
Decided on : 20-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Mr. Abul Mannan Mollah, Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee
For the Respondent: Mr. Jhuma Chakraborty, Mr. Sourav Roy

Compliance with guidelines and obtaining necessary permissions for the installation of mobile towers is crucial.

Headnote:

Mobile Tower Installation - Land Dispute - Guidelines 2020, 2023 - The court referred to the Guidelines 2020 and 2023 in relation to the installation of mobile towers and the requirement for obtaining prior permission from the appropriate authority. The court emphasized the importance of obtaining necessary permissions and compliance with guidelines for the installation of mobile towers. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate for adjudication.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought an order to enquire into the installation of a mobile tower on a disputed land and to command the demolition of the tower. The petitioner claimed that the installation violated guidelines and posed health hazards.

Finding of the Court:

The court referred to conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the land and the installation of the mobile tower. It emphasized the importance of obtaining necessary permissions and compliance with guidelines for the installation of mobile towers. The court decided to refer the matter to the District Magistrate for adjudication.

Issues: Dispute over the installation of a mobile tower on disputed land, compliance with guidelines, and potential health hazards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining necessary permissions and compliance with guidelines for the installation of mobile towers. It decided to refer the matter to the District Magistrate for adjudication.

Final Decision: The court referred the matter to the District Magistrate for adjudication and disposed of the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Heard Mr.Rajdeep Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Jhuma Chakraborty, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent State, and Mr.Sourav Roy, learned counsel for the eighth respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

    (a) An order or direction upon the District Magistrate, Hooghly to enquire or cause an enquiry to be made at the area wherein the Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. has been erecting the mobile tower under Bhagabatipur Mouza within Chanditala Police Station, District Hoogly and submit a status report to this Court.

(b) A writ or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent particularly the sixth respondent/Prodhan Bhagabatipur Gram Panchayat to forthwith demolish and/or dismantle the unlawful installation of mobile tower in Plot No.1608 in MouzaBhagabatipur, District Hoogly which is adjacent to the petitioner Viti land.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in Mouza Bhagabatipur, J.L.No.41, Plot No.1613/3183 originally belonged to the father of the petitioner having 14 annas share and during his life time, the father of the petitioner, in the year 1989, gifted the said land in favour of his two sons, namely Sk. Abu Abbasuddin (petitioner herein) and Sk. Abu Afsaruddin. Pursuant to the gift, the petitioner and his brother became the owners of the said land and are residing there with their family members. Plot No.1613/3183 is adjacent to Plot No.1608 in Mouza-Bhagabatipur and the area where the petitioner resides is thickly populated area.

4. On 13.11.2018, the petitioner noticed that the private respondent along with some other people gathered on the Plot No.1608 and started digging earth by a JCB vehicle. When the petitioner asked the private respondent, respondent No.7 replied that they have leased out a part of the said plot to Reliance Jio Company for installation of a mobile tower. Immediately, the petitioner made a protest stating that it is a densely populated area and within two meters distance there is a room where many cows are kept. In spite such protest, they did not stop installation work. On 14.11.2018, the petitioner made a written representation to the Gram Prodhan of Bhagabatipur Gram Panchayat and on 16.11.2018, the petitioner submitted an objection petition to the District Magistrate, Hooghly, SDO, Serampore, BDO, Chanditala-I, BL&LRO, Chanditala-I praying them to take action against such erection of mobile tower in the locality. After receiving such objection petition, the Prodhan Bhagabatipur Gram Panchayat orally said that they have issued notice not to make any erection of mobile tower on the said spot. While so, all of a sudden on 26.3.2019, the petitioner found that respondent No.7 with the help of his associates started erection work of mobile tower on Plot No.1608.

5. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 violating the guidelines for installation of mobile tower and rules framed thereunder has leased out the land where respondent No.8 started erection work of the illegal mobile tower in the residential area. Unless a mandate is issued, the respondent, particularly, the Prodhan, Bhagabatipur Gram Panchayat will not make the offenders stop committing unlawful activities. Since the respondent Gram Prodhan has not paid any heed to the complaint made by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. The contesting respondent No.8 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that advisory guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India to the State Governments so as to issue clearance for installation of mobile tower. In terms of the said guidelines, respondent No.8 obtained all necessary permissions in order to install and operate the mobile tower at the location. Respondent No.8 obtained a SACFA clearance, structural stability certificate, no objection certificate and also the acknowledgement issued by the Term

            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
            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