Pending civil partition suits do not bar environmental restoration of protected wetlands; State must prioritize ecological conservation over private property disputes, restoring filled water bodies despite status quo injunctions.

ORDER

1. Mr. Indradeep Ghosh assisted by Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).

ORDER

1. Mr. Indradeep Ghosh assisted by Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.

2. The Applicant is stated to be joint owner and in possession of plots of land at Mouza-Kalikapur, J.L. No.20, R.S. Dag No.375, Police Station-Narendrapur and Mouza-Mukundapur, J.L. No.04, R.S. Dag No.25, 34, 35, 36, 41 and 80, Police Station-Purva Jadavpur. It is stated that the said plots are recorded as Beel, Tank, Fisheries and Bheri. It is also stated that the said plots are water bodies and wetlands in nature and are included in the list of Ramsar sites and specified in Schedule-I of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.

3. The allegation of the Applicant is that the Respondent Nos.11 & 12 drained out water from the water bodies by using pumps and started filling up the said water bodies depositing white sand and debris from the construction site. It is also alleged that the said Respondents have demarcated and divided the said land into several small plots and sold out the same to some buyers for purposes of construction of a Housing Complex Project on the said plots of land.

4. It is further stated that the Applicant had filed W.P.A. No.8456 (W) of 2015 before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in which the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority submitted a Report on affidavit confirming that private respondents of the said writ petition had violated the provisions of East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.

5. It is stated that thereafter the Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court had disposed of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 with a direction to the authorities to act in terms of the Act of 2006 and restore the wetland to its former shape.

6. The copy of the judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta dated 21.11.2017 reads as under :-

“W.P. No.8456 (w) of 2015 Ranjit Kumar Sapui

v.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

CAN No.4034 of 2017 and CAN No.7824 of 2017

Ms. Amrita Sinha Ms Madhurima Sarkar ... for the Petitioner Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. A.G.

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Debaashish Ghosh Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas ... for the State Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Pratik Majumder ... for the Respondent no.10 Mr. Jay Saha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dipayan Kundu ... for the Respondent no.11

21.11.2017 The petitioner complains that, the State is not taking steps to restore and preserve a wetland.

The respondent nos.10 and 111 are represented.

The State respondents are represented by the learned Advocate General.

There are two applications in the pending writ petition, which are taken up for consideration analogously. CAN No.4034 of 20174 is an application made by the petitioner for appropriate order. CAN No.7824 of 2017 is an application made by the respondent no.11 seeking modification of subsisting interim orders.

The fact that, the land in question comprises of wetland is not disputed between the parties. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no.11 raises the question of maintainability of the writ petition and the grant of relief in the writ petition. He su