Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Shyamapada Darhi - Appellant
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 13251 of 2023
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Article 226 - PMAY(G) Scheme - The court interpreted the provisions of the PMAY(G) Scheme and the West Bengal Panchayat Act, concluding that the private respondents were eligible beneficiaries, thus dismissing the petitioner's claims for demolition and sanction revocation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land where private respondents constructed a house under the PMAY(G) scheme, alleging illegal construction and improper sanction due to the respondents' possession of a motorized vehicle, which should exclude them from benefits under the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private respondents had valid possession certificates and did not fall under the exclusion criteria of the PMAY(G) scheme, thus upholding the legality of their construction and the sanction granted.
Issues: Whether the private respondents were eligible for benefits under the PMAY(G) scheme and if the construction on the disputed land was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eligibility for PMAY(G) benefits was determined by the criteria set forth in the scheme, and since the private respondents met these criteria, the petitioner's claims were unfounded.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred praying for the following reliefs:-
(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents and their men and agents to take appropriate steps to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the private respondents on the land in question;
(c) A writ of Mandamus commending the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 20.04.2023 being Annexure “P-9” herein;
2. The facts in brief as stated by the petitioner is that:-
(ii) Gurupada Kayal sold and transferred the remaining 40 decimals out of 80 decimals to Tarapada Darhi and Bishnupada Darhi vide a registered Deed of Sale vide no.1484 in the year of 1975. Thus, the applicant and his three brothers namely Nirapada Darhi, Tarapada Darhi and Bishnupada Darhi became the owners of 80 decimals of the land under Khatian No.105/1 of the said plot.
(iii) That 169 decimals of the said plot no.666 under Khatian no.80 originally belonged to the petitioner’s father namely Kalipada Das Dari. After his demise, the 169 decimals of the land under Khatian No.80 were inherited by the petitioner and his aforementioned three brothers and they became the owners.
(iv) The petitioner is the present recorded owner of 177 decimals of the said plot no.666 under Khatian No.746.
(v) The petitioner states that the three brothers of the petitioner namely Nirapada Darhi, Tarapada Darhi and Bishnupada Darhi executed a power of attorney being no.19 in the year 2017 in the name of your petitioner for their respective shares in the aforesaid plot under Khatian No.105/1 and also for 80 decimals in the plot under Khatian No.80.
(vi) On the basis of the aforementioned power of attorney, the petitioner is lawfully entitled to have the demarcation of 80 decimals (under Khatian no.105/1) + 122.25 decimals (under Khatian no.80) + 177 decimals (under Khatian no.746), thus total 379.25 decimals of land in dag no.666.
(vii) The petitioner states that the private respondents have been constructing illegal structures over the said land. The private respondents did not apply for the conversion of the nature and character of the land as is required under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and he also did not obtain any permission or sanction from the Bharatgarh Panchayat as mandated under Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
(viii) The petitioner made several representations to all concerned authorities, and thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA No.6558 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.03.2022 directed the Prodhan of Bharatgarh Panchayat to adjudicate the petitioner’s complaint.
(ix) The Prodhan of Bharatgarh Gram Panchayat conducted an enquiry of the concerned plot and passed a reasoned order dated 17.11.2022 and directed the private respondents to stop the construction work and demolish the existing construction work at their own cost and vacate the suit premises immediately.
(x) The private respondent no.1 filed a writ petition being WPA No.25290 of 2022. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Canning to decide the matter, and ensure that the private r
The court established that compliance with the PMAY(G) scheme's eligibility criteria is essential for sanctioning benefits, and the presence of valid possession certificates supports the legality of ....
Point of law: Land cannot be utilized for any other purpose, except for grazing cattle as ‘mandabayalu’ and no change of classification of the land in Sy.No.74/3 is for ‘mandabayalu’ into ‘assessed w....
The respondent authority is the lawful owner of the Final Plot No. 49 and therefore, unauthorized constructions of tin sheet sheds with iron angles and guarders are without any authority of Rules and....
The court established that a petitioner must come with clean hands when seeking equitable relief, and the legality of encroachments requires thorough investigation.
The court upheld that construction permits are mandatory and necessitated an inquiry into the petitioner's property title under the KDH Act before addressing eviction disputes.
The court affirmed that land classified as 'Banjar Qadim' does not vest in the Gram Panchayat unless proven otherwise, and the presumption of truth in revenue records was upheld, leading to the dismi....
The availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 and the requirement to establish locus standi for filing a writ petition.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
