Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Biswajit Halder – Appellant
Versus
Paban Halder – Respondent
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
Notice to restore land classified as 'Bastu' without proper inquiry is arbitrary; judicial review mandates reasoned decisions backed by evidence.
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.
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
