Conversion of water bodies is strictly prohibited without state approval under the Inland Fisheries Act, reaffirming authority to restore such areas and enforce statutory protections.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The writ petitioner, the respondent State and its instrumentalities, the respondent/Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC in short) and the private respondents are represented by their respective counsels.

2. On behalf of the State respondents, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted a report dated 09.09.2025 as prepared by O.C., Nadial Police Station, Kolkata. Let the report dated 09.09.2025 as submitted on behalf of the respondent State be taken on record.

3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no. 6 authority commanding him to withdraw and/or recall and/or rescind the order dated 26.05.2025 as has been annexed at page nos. 59 to 69 of the instant writ petition. At the time of hearing, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate duly assisted by Ms. Dhamali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 54 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the memo dated 24.07.2024 as issued by the respondent no. 3 authority to the respondent no. 6 authority requesting him to take appropriate steps regarding alleged unauthorized filling of two water bodies measuring 9 kottah 7 chitak 6 sq. ft. in mouza Garden Reach Sheet 60 within the Ward No. 138 of KMC under Nadial P.S. It is pertinent to mention herein that such memo dated 24.07.2024 was issued pursuant to the complaint made by one Insaf Ali Molla.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that from page nos. 55 to 57 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that complaining the inaction on the part of the respondent no. 6 authority, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing WPA 24115 of 2009 which came to be disposed of on 05.12.2024 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court directing the respondent no. 6 authority to cause inspection at the disputed plot(s) and after giving an opportunity of hearing both the writ petitioner and the private respondent shall pass a reasoned order upon the representation dated 31.08.2023 in accordance with law.

5. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Banerjee that in the later portion of such order, the said Coordinate Bench further directed the respondent no. 6 authority herein to take all necessary and consequential steps in the event the respondent no. 6 finds sufficient justification in the allegation of the writ petitioner of the said writ petition while passing the reasoned order.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Banerjee requests me to look to page nos. 58 to 61 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the order dated 26.05.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 6 authority, which is under challenge.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that in complete disregard to the earlier order dated 05.12.2024 as passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent no. 6 authority practically shifted his responsibility to the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (hereinafter referred to as BL & LRO in short) though sufficient materials have been placed before him that the disputed plots of land are recorded as water body in the recently published Record of Rights.

8. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Banerjee places his reliance upon the provision of Section 17A of the Inland Fisheries Act of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1984). It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that on perusal of Section 17A (9) and (10) it would reveal that filling up of a water body with a view to c