Court No. 19 WPA 3061 of 2026 (265719)

16.02.2026 Sree Sree Durgamata Thakurani, (AD 45) represented by her sebait:

Daityeswar Majumder (S. Banerjee) Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sounak Mandal Mr. Abhirup Halder …for the petitioner Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharya …for the State Mr. S. S. Arefin …for the respondent no. 6 The petitioner has challenged the notice dated November 18, 2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent for suspension of permission for felling of trees.

This writ petition has been filed by the Deity represented by its Shebait namely, Daityeswar Majumder. Petitioner claims that on the basis of Arpannama deeds, RS Plot No. 727 corresponding to LR Plot No. 742 within Mouza – Khatnagar, under Ausgram Police Station in the district of Birbhum has been recorded in the name of the petitioner Deity as raiyat under LR Khatian no. 92/1 and LR Khatian No. 806. The petitioner claims that in the bank of the Pukur being LR Plot No. 742 there are some trees and for the purpose of replanting new trees by felling/disposing of the old trees, the petitioner applied for permission before the Range Officer, Panagar Range. Petitioner states that pursuant to the said application the concerned authority granted permission in favour of the petitioner for felling/disposing of the trees and to replant trees at plot no. 742.

Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the permission granted for felling of trees was subsequently suspended by a notice dated 18.11.2025. He submits that after the permission for felling of trees was granted in favour of the petitioner, such permission could not have been suspended by a subsequent notice.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the State files a report of the Inspector-in-Charge of Ausgram Police Station dated February 14, 2026 which is taken on record.

Learned advocate appearing for the private-

respondents submits that private-respondents are also co-sharers in respect of the plot in question and no permission for felling of trees could have been granted in favour of the petitioner without the consent of the other co-sharers.

After going through the notice dated November

18, 2025, it appears that the ground for issuance of the suspension letter is that some persons claiming to be one of the co-sharers of LR Plot No. 742 submitted an objection in writing against felling of the trees on November 17, 2025.

Thus, it appears that there is a dispute as to the title and possession of the plot in question between the petitioner and the private respondents.

When an objection against felling of trees has been raised by the private respondents, it is to be first decided whether the petitioners have a right to the trees in respect of which felling permission was sought for and obtained by the petitioner.

Such a dispute has to be resolved by the competent authority.

Till any decision is taken on the objection raised by the private respondents against the grant of felling permission and to replant new trees, the present status should not be allowed to be disturbed. This Court, therefore, holds that the respondent authority was justified in suspending the permission granted earlier.

Without entering into the merits of the claims and counter-claims of the respective parties, this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the Divisional Forest Officer, Bardhaman Division, being the respondent no. 2 herein, to consider and decide whether the permission for felling trees for the purpose of replanting trees on LR Plot No. 742 could have been granted in favour of the petitioner.

It will be open to the respective parties to place all materials before the 2^nd respondent in support of their respective claims and the 2^nd respondent shall be free to decide the said issue by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, private-respondents and any other person who may be affected by such decision.

The reasoned order shall be communicated to the respective pa