IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 10354 of 2025 Subhajit Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Uttiya Ray Mr. Ashutosh Pal Ms. Anima Maiti For the Municipality : Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay For the private : Mr. Bijoy Kumar Shaw respondent no. 8 Mr. Arun Shaw For the State : Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Debdooti Dutta Heard on : 21.05.2025 Judgement on : 21.05.2025 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. The writ petitioner, the respondent/State and its functionaries i.e., the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 7, the respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 8 are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. On behalf of the respondent no. 2, a report dated 20.05.2025 as submitted by the Chairman, Burdwan Municipality is filed and the same is taken on record.

3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities preventing them towards illegal filling up of the writ petitioner’s pond (water body) and to carry out any other activity, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the instant writ petition.

4. In course of his submission, Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to paragraph no. 1 of the instant writ petition as well as to Page No. 14 being a copy of the relevant LR ROR. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the averments made in the instant writ petition as well as from the copy of the said LRROR, it would reveal that L.R. Plot No. 1835 is classified as ‘Pukur’ (water body) and the same stands in the name of the writ petitioner to the extent of 0.158 acre.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Ray draws attention of this Court to Page No. 15 of the instant writ petition being two photographs.

Attention of this Court is also drawn to paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that though the writ petitioner is the recorded owner of the said water body, the respondents/authorities more specifically, the respondent no. 2 and/or its men and agents without taking any recourse to the law has started some illegal activity over the said water body of the present petitioner in the garb of renovation and beautification without taking any consent of the writ petitioner as well as without following the statutory mandate of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1984’ in short).

6. In course of his submission, Mr. Ray submits before this Court that Section 17A(1) of the said Act of 1984 clearly mandates regarding the prohibition for filling up any water area and/or any depressed land, natural or artificial into a solid land for the purpose of construction of any building or for any other purpose. It is further submitted by Mr. Ray that the said sub- section further prohibits a person to change the water body including its embankment which is capable of being used as fishery.

7. At this stage, attention of this Court is drawn to the provision of Section 17A(2) and (3) of the said Act of 1984. It is submitted that the said statutory provision further mandates that in the event, the competent authority either on receipt of an information or on its own motion is satisfied that anything is done by the person in contravention of the provision of Section 17A(1) of the said Act of 1984, the said competent authority shall proceed in accordance with the provision of sub-Section (3).

8. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the provision of Section

17A(10) of the said Act of 1984. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that on perusal of the said sub-section, it would reveal that in the event of non-compliance of the requisition of notice under Section 17A(3) of the said Act of 1984, the competent authority is empowered to take control of the