Allowed

Renuka Bibi v. Amal Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Dec 2021MAT/1000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an interim order directing demolition of unauthorized construction, the Supreme Court held that the lower court failed to consider the mandatory procedural requirements under section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. The Court quashed the direction to demolish immediately without a proper inquiry and served notice, directing authorities to conclude proceedings under

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; direction to demolish without procedure quashed; authorities directed to conclude proceedings under section 10 of the Act within two months.

Renuka Bibi Vs Amal Kumar Mondal and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

5 ss/jks 08.12.2021

¶2

MAT 1000 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2021 Renuka Bibi Vs.

¶3

Amal Kumar Mondal & Ors. (Through Video Conference)

¶4

Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty Mr. Kaustav Das

¶5

… … for the appellant

¶6

Mr. Atarup Banerjee Mr. Mrityunjay Chatterjee Mr. G.N. Imrohi Ms. Saswati Adhikary

¶7

… … for the respondent no. 1

¶8

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag

¶9

… … for the State

¶10

By this appeal the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2021 has been questioned by the appellant (respondent no. 7 in the writ petition) whereby learned Single Judge has directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sagardighi Block, Murshidabad to demarcate the unauthorized construction on the government land made by the private respondents in the writ petition within seven days and further directed the Assistant Engineer, Raghunathganj Highway SubDivision, Public Works Department to complete the demolition process within a period of one week thereafter.

¶11

The appellant has raised a grievance that the appellant is required to be given an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of the Act before passing the order of demolition. He has also raised an issue that earlier when the order was passed by this Court in the year 2015 no opportunity of hearing was

¶12

¶13

given by the authorities and the provisions of the Act were not complied with.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) as also the State respondent have referred to the order dated 09.02.2015 passed in WP 11423 (W) of 2013 and have submitted that in 2015 itself there was a direction by this Court to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and other interested parties and then embark upon to dispose of the representation. They have submitted at that stage the order of demolition was passed but for some reason demolition could not be done.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have noticed that in this writ appeal on 29.09.2021 the interim direction was issued to the following effect:

¶16

“Upon hearing the parties and considering the materials placed, at this stage this Court confines itself to consideration of the essential fact as to whether an opportunity of hearing was extended to the appellant in terms of the orders dated 9^th February, 2015 and 30^th July, 2015 (supra).

¶17

Accordingly, it is directed that the Assistant Engineer, Raghunathganj Highway SubDivision, PWD directorate, District – Murshidabad/the Respondent No. 5 shall hear the appellant and the private respondent upon prior notice to both the parties. The Respondent No. 5 shall file his Report through learned State Counsel on next date.”

¶18

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance to the above direction the competent authority has taken a decision to initiate the proceedings under section 10 of the West Bengal

¶19

¶20

Highways Act, 1964. He has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 09.11.2021 of the Assistant Engineer, Raghunathganj Highway Sub-Division, PW (Roads) Directorate.

¶21

Section 10(1) of the Act of 1964 reads as under:

¶22

“10. (1) If any person,-

¶23

(a) is found to have made an encroachment on any road, street, path, way or land which is declared to be a highway under sub-section (1) of section 3, or

¶24

(b) makes an encroachment on a highway in contravention of the provisions of section 8, or

¶25

¶26

the Highway Authority or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a notice on him requiring him to remove the encroachment and restore the highway to its original condition within the period specified in the notice.

¶27

(2) If the encroachment is not removed within the time specified in the notice, the Highway Authority or the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may make an application to [an Executive Magistrate], having jurisdiction over the area, not being the District Magistrate, for removal of the encroachment and delivery of possession of the land encroached upon to the Highway Authority or such officer.

¶28

(3) Such Magistrate may, on receiving the application and after notice to the person responsible for the encroachment and on taking such evidence, if any, as he thinks fit, make an order authorising the authority or officer to recover possession and remove the encroachment in question and may, if necessary, direct the police to assist in the enforcement of order.”

¶29

¶30

In terms of section 10(1) of the Act a notice is required to be served by the competent officer to the alleged encroacher and thereafter under section 10(2) an application is required to be made to the District Magistrate for removal of encroachment and in terms of section 10(3) the Magistrate after taking the evidence, if any, and after notice to the person responsible for the alleged encroachment can pass an order authorising the authority to remove possession or remove the encroachment in question.

¶31

The proceedings dated 09.11.2021 of the Assistant Engineer clearly stated that he will take necessary action to invoke section 10(1) of the Act.

¶32

Nothing has been pointed to show that at the earlier stage the proceedings were taken under section 10 of the Act and by following the procedure prescribed therein an order was passed in terms of section 10(3) of the Act.

¶33

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the provisions of section 10 of the Act and the plea in respect of non-compliance of the said provisions. Hence, we allow the appeal and direct the competent authorities to conclude the proceedings in terms of section 10 of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. The earlier report, etc. can duly be considered now in the fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

¶34

¶35

The appeal being MAT 1000 of 2021 along with CAN 1 of 2021 are accordingly disposed of.

¶36

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

¶37

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)

Renuka Bibi v. Amal Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Bibi v. Amal Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupam Sirkar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sabyasachi Mondal Adn Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Sanuar Hossain Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Omega Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Sourav Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Satyendra Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.