Disposed

Bimal Kumar Panja v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2021AST/11/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding potential demolition of petitioner's land, the court directed the District Collector to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks after a hearing and prevented any adverse action pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondent 3 to decide the representation within four weeks after hearing; no adverse action pending such decision.

Bimal Kumar Panja Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

10 .02 .2021 Item no. 7

¶2

Aloke (Through Video Conference) Ct. no.38

¶3

AST 11 of 2021

¶4

Sri Bimal Kumar Panja Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Krishan Ray Ms. Amrita Chel Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Anamitra Banerjee … for the petitioner Mr. Chandi Charan De, ld. AGP Mr. Somenath Mukherjee … for the State

¶6

The petitioner says that he purchased 6 decimal of land through two purchased deeds. He has drawn my attention to such deeds. He has also drawn my attention to the municipal tax receipts and the khajna receipts which are in his name. This prima facie establishes that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and he is in possession. The petitioner says that without initiating any proceeding against the petitioner either under the Highways Act or the Acquisition legislations or any other relevant statute, the PWD department suddenly came and marked a portion of the residential building of the petitioner standing on the land in question for the purpose of demolishing the same which the petitioner came to know from public announcements made in the locality.

¶7

¶8

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶9

Learned Advocate for the State in his usual fairness says that it is correct that no proceeding has been initiated by the State and without following due process of law the State cannot demolish the property of a citizen. He, however, points out that a representation dated February 2, 2021 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition), has been made by the petitioner, addressed to various officials in the administration including the District Magistrate and District Collector, Paschim Medinipur, being the respondent no. 3. He submits that the said representation may be directed to be disposed of before any action can be taken by the State. I find the suggestion of learned counsel for the State to be fair and reasonable.

¶10

Accordingly, I direct the respondent no. 3 to take a reasoned decision on the representation dated February 2, 2021, made by the petitioner (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition), in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative and any other concerned party. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from the date of the decision. It is made clear that no adverse action will be taken against the

¶11

¶12

petitioner or his property by the State administration before disposing of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. In the event the decision of the respondent no. 3 goes against the petitioner, no effect will be given thereto for a fortnight from the date of service of a copy of such order on the petitioner.

¶13

I have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case. The respondent no. 3 shall take an informed decision in accordance with the applicable laws.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Since no affidavit has been called for, none of the allegations in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶16

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

Bimal Kumar Panja v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Kumar Panja v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mangalam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Subhra Ghosh Vs Smt Maya Ghosh and Ors.

Basab Dutta Vs the General Manager and 2 Others

Kamarhatty Company Limited Vs Kessels Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Pravapada Maji Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subrata Singha Alias Subrata Kr Singha and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.