Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging unauthorized filling of waterbodies. The court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the prior conversion of land to a housing complex, precluding the current claim. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
D/L Item No. 16 02.05.2022 KOLE
FMA 240 of 2022 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2022 Shirajul Islam Molla -Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. Chattopadhyay, Mr. A. Maji,
… for the appellant.
Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP, Mr. R. Saha, Ms. T. Chanda,
… for the State.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Mr. S. Roy, Mr. D. Ghosh, Mr. A. Amin,
… for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.
Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. P. Bhattacharyya,
… for the respondent no. 5.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the application are taken up together for hearing.
Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner prayed for a direction on the respondents for consideration of his representation dated July 16, 2021, which was Annexure ‘P-2’ to the writ application. By the said representation, the writ petitioner requested the concerned authorities to take immediate and prompt action to stop the unauthorized construction made on some alleged waterbodies at LR Dag Nos. 418, 421, 422, 423, 426/609, 420, Mouza Gouripur, Barrackpore-II, North 24 Parganas.
2
The writ petition did not succeed before the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.
The appellant submits before this Court that the lands in question were waterbodies and for filling up of such waterbodies the permission ought to have been obtained from the Competent Authorities under Section 17A of the Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.
By filling up the waterbodies without obtaining such permission, the private respondent as well as the State authorities had acted in violation of the said Act. Therefore, this Court should issue appropriate direction to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.
On behalf of the Municipality, it has been submitted by way of an affidavit that the Competent Authority under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on September 24, 2014, issued a conversion certificate with regard to the said lands converting the same into a “housing complex” in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent. Upon such conversion being allowed, the Municipality granted a sanctioned plan in favour of the private respondent with a condition that about 8 kattahs of the land should be retained as a pond.
It has further been averred in the said affidavit that the respondent no. 5 has made a swimming pool “in the form of waterbody” within that housing complex.
Whether such conversion was illegally allowed or not was not the subject matter of challenge before the learned
3
Single Judge. The fact remains that well before the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge, the lands were converted as housing complex by the Competent Authority under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
The writ petitioner could not approach the learned Single Judge alleging violation of Section 17A of the Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, without challenging such conversion of the lands in question as “housing complex”.
Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the appellant will be at liberty to challenge the conversion order issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in accordance with law, if he is so advised.
With the aforesaid observations, FMA 240 of 2022 and I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Arijit Banerjee , J .)
( Kausik Chanda , J .)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of the petition alleging violation of the Inland Fisheries Act regarding unauthorized filling of waterbodies.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shirajul Islam Molla
The State of West Bengal
Arijit Banerjee
Kausik Chanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
