Disposed

Rabin Debnath & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Feb 2023WPA/16786/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged land encroachment by a club affecting petitioners' ingress and egress, the High Court, relying on municipal reports, directed the Baidyabati Municipality to remove any existing encroachment on Dag No. 4958 within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Municipality is directed to remove the encroachment on land under Dag No. 4958, if it persists as on the date of the order, within three weeks.

Rabin Debnath & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

6 23.02.2023 adeb

¶2

W.P.A. 16786 of 2009

¶3

Rabin Debnath & Ors.

¶4

Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury

¶6

Mr. Ritoprita Ghosh

¶7

….for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Basudeb Gayen ….for the Baidyabati Municipality

¶9

Mr. Soumya Banerjee Ms. Sucheta Banerjee

¶10

…for the respondent nos. 9 & 10

¶11

The writ petitioners have raised a grievance of encroaching land situates adjacent to the premises of the petitioners by Sabuj Sangha Club and its members who are respondents nos. 9 & 10 in the writ petition. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the encroachment has been made by the said club by erecting bamboo fencing as a result whereof the right of ingress and egress to the respective premises of the petitioners gets affected.

¶12

Since the writ petition was instituted in the year 2009 after hearing the learned advocates representing the petitioners, said club and Baidyabati Municipality Court passed orders previously directing the Municipality to submit a report after granting opportunity to the representative of the club as well as petitioners to make deliberations before the concerned authority of the Municipality. Accordingly, the issue was considered by the Municipality and two reports have been filed dated 19^th

¶13

¶14

December, 2022 and 25^th January, 2023. Out of these two reports the report dated 25^th January, 2023 is filed today which is taken on record and another report dated 19^th December, 2022 is already available on record.

¶15

On perusal of these two reports it appears that the grievance of the petitioners centers around piece of land situates under Dag no. 4958 under the jurisdiction of Baidyabati Municipality.

¶16

Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that if said piece of land under Dag No. 4958 is kept free from encroachment, substantially grievance of the petitioners shall stand redressed. However, it has been submitted that till date, the said land situates under Dag No. 4958 is encroached by the club.

¶17

Mr. Soumya Banerjee, learned advocate representing the club has disputed the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that it is true that the club is not the owner of the piece of land under Dag No. 4958 rather the adjoining piece of land situates under Dag No. 4957 is owned by the club, but today the land under Dag No. 4958 is not encroached by the club.

¶18

Baidyabati Municipality is represented by learned advocate who has made submission upon placing reliance on those two reports one dated 19^th December, 2022 and another dated 25^th January, 2023.

¶19

¶20

Considering the respective submissions made by the parties to this writ petition and on perusal of the aforesaid two reports it appears that if today there is an encroachment on the plot of land situates under Dag No. 4958 the same requires to be removed by the Municipality since it is apparent from the report as well as submission made by the learned advocates that the land under Dag No. 4958 is not owned by the club.

¶21

Therefore, this Court directs the Municipality to remove the encroachment on the land under Dag No. 4958, if the encroachment persists as on date, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied

¶25

for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶26

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)

Rabin Debnath & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabin Debnath & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & 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

Mainul Azad Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Suchitra Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kazi Abdur Rashid Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kabiruddin Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Saraf Infraprojects Ltd. & Anr. Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Sabar Ali Mondal Vs the Chairman, Central Regional School Service Comm. & Ors.