Judgment :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.

2. From the averments made in the condonation application, we find that the appellant pleads ignorance of the upgradation of the writ petition, upon which the same was disposed of by the impugned judgment.

3. From the impugned judgment dated August 12, 2024, we find a recording that the matter was upgraded on a further notice served upon the State counsel but do not find anything to indicate that any specific notice of such upgradation was given to the private respondent/present appellant.

4. Accordingly, we find the reason for the delay, being belated knowledge of the appellant regarding the impugned judgment, to be credible.

5. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed on contest, thereby condoning the delay in preferring MAT 293 of 2025.

6. There will be no order as to costs. 

Re: MAT 293 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

7. The appeal is now taken up for passing appropriate orders.

8. None appears for the State at the time of call.

9. The backdrop of the case is that initially the private respondent herein moved a writ petition alleging illegal filling up of a waterbody.

10. Pursuant to the same, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas to cause the representation of the writ petitioner therein (present private respondent) to be considered by a competent authority within a period of two months from the date of communication of the copy of the said order.

11. Pursuant to the said order dated August 02, 2021 passed in WPA 10840 of 2021, the District Magistrate referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour who, vide order dated August 27, 2021, observed that despite opportunity being given to both the present appellant and the private respondent, they failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of their construction. Accordingly, the said parties were directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to remove all of their “unauthorized and illegal” constructions made over the subject property, being Dag no. 560 classified as Khal (waterbody) of Mouza – Tentulberia, J.L. No. 08, P.S. – Mathurapur, District: South 24 Parganas within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said order.

12. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant moved a writ petition bearing WPA 20208 of 2021 which was disposed of by another learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated June 21, 2022, observing therein that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not the jurisdictional authority and setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on such ground, simultaneously directing the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-I Block, to consider the representation submitted by the private respondent within one month from the date of communication of the order of the learned Single Judge, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties.

13. Pursuant thereto, the Block Development Officer, Mathurapur-I Development Block, South 24 Parganas passed an order dated October 17, 2022. In the said order, the Block Development Officer observed inter alia that although he was not the jurisdictional authority since, as per the Notification No. 1748-Fish/C-I/9R- 03/2017 dated July 20, 2017, the District Magistrate was the competent authority to undertake a proceeding under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1984 Act”), in deference to the direction of the learned Single Judge, the Block Development Officer expressed the opinion that both parties failed to produce any legal and authorized documents or any evidence in support of construction.

14. Subsequently, the present private respondent moved the last writ petition, bearing WPA 9564 of 2023, from which the present appeal arises.

15. The grievance of the private respondent/writ petitioner was that the order of the Block Development Officer dated October 17, 2022 was not being imp