Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3244
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Partha Sarathi Sen, J
M/s. Sterling Finvest Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.A. 16288 of 2023 | W.P.A. 21159 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Rishab Dutta Gupta, Ms. Debanjali Patra
For the Respondents: Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Srinath Singha Roy, Mr. Santanu Mitra, Ms. Kalpita Paul, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui
The court upheld the validity of the East Kolkata Wetlands Act, affirming restrictions on land characterization as wetlands following prior notifications and case law on public interest.
Headnote:(A) East Kolkata Wetlands (Conversion and Management) Act, 2006 - Notification dated 31.03.2006 brought into effect on 16.11.2005 - Controversy regarding character of land as either 'Sali' or 'Danga' - Writ petitioner failed to establish that the purchased properties are not wetlands or water bodies, thus restrictions apply as per law. (Paras 2, 12, 15)
(B) Doctrine of legitimate expectation - Application of the doctrine vitiated when decisions affect public interest, as established in prior case law and affirmed herein. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner challenges the characterization of purchased lands under the said Act as wetlands, asserting that appropriate notifications were ignored.
Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence supports that the land falls under wetland classification as per notifications and judgments, denying the petitioner’s claims.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the classification of purchased properties and the legitimate expectation doctrine.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Act and its notifications are applicable due to ownership after enactment, preventing commercial activities on the identified wetland.
Result: Writ petition dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties represented by advocates. (Para 1) |
| 2. petition for issuance of writ regarding land notifications. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on land classification presented by both parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. court found insufficient grounds for petitioner's claims. (Para 15 , 18 , 20) |
1. The writ petitioner and the respondent authorities are represented by their learned advocates.
2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for not giving the effect of notification dated 31.03.2006 of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conversion and Management) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short), which was came into effect retrospectively on and from 16.11.2005.
3. In course of his submission Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.39 to 119, being copies of five registered deed of conveyance as have been executed in favour of the present writ petitioner.
4. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that from the schedules of the said registered deeds of conveyance it would reveal that the character of the purchased lands are either ‘Sali’ or ‘Danga’.
5. It is submitted further that from page no.200 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that the said properties were mutated in the name of the writ petitioner in connection with L.R. Plot Nos.520, 521, 554 and 674 and to that effect the jurisdictional BL &
LRO issued a certificate of mutation.
6. It is submitted further that from page no.225 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that on the basis of such mutation the relevant record of right in respect of the L.R. Plot Nos.520, 521, 554 and 674 have been recorded in the name of the writ petitioner and the copy of the said LR RoR clearly indicates that the said properties are either ‘Danga’ or ‘Sali’.
7. At this juncture, Mr. Chakraborty draws attention of this Court to page no.226 onwards being the relevant gazette notification of the said Act.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that in the schedule of the said Act, the purchased property as mentioned hereinabove has been included wrongly, since the said lands as purchased by the writ petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be considered as a wetland and/or water body.
9. It is submitted that despite submission of representation by the writ petitioner the respondent authorities did nothing and practically sat tight over the matter. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chakrabory that it is a fit case for granting the reliefs as prayed for by the writ petitioner.
10. Per contra, Mr. Mitra, learned advocate duly assisted by Ms. Kalpita Paul, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities draws attention of this Court to the report as filed in connection with WPA 16288 of 2023. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that he is relying the said report in connection with the instant writ petition being WPA 21159 of 2023.
11. In course of his submission Mr. Mitra draws attention of this Court to various pages of the instant writ report, more specifically from page nos.9 to 13. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that from the report as submitted before this Court, the following would reveal:-
(a) In the year 1992, in the case of People United in Better Living in Calcutta (PUBLIC) & Another versus The State of West Bengal & Others the Hon’ble Court passed the following direction :
“There shall be an order of injunction restraining the State- Respondents from reclaiming any further wetland. There shall also be an order of injunction prohibiting the respondents from granting any permission to any person whatsoever for the purpose of changing the use of the land from agricultural to residential or commercial in the area as indicated in the map annexed to the petition and marked with letter ‘C’. The State- Respondents are further directed to maintain the nature and cha
