Disposed¶11

Aparna Das v. Mr. Purnendu Majhi and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Feb 2024WPCRC/23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

contempt Rule discharged; CPAN 1121 of 2023; WPCRC 23 of 2024; compliance with order dated July 4, 2023 in WPA 25262 of 2022; affidavit-of-compliance; District Magistrate; Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO); unauthorized occupation; eviction proceedings; Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962; due process; personal appearance dispensed with; no costs; liberty to file fresh writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Rule of contempt discharged (WPCRC 23 of 2024) and CPAN 1121 of 2023 disposed of; further personal appearance of the alleged contemnor dispensed with; petitioner left free to file a fresh writ petition if subsequently aggrieved; no order as to costs. ¶11

Aparna Das Vs Mr. Purnendu Majhi and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether any contempt of court still subsists warranting continuance of the Rule, given the claimed compliance with the July 4, 2023 order and referral of the matter to the SDO, while eviction proceedings had not yet been initiated by the District Magistrate. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

No contempt of court subsists as of now, since due process of law has already been initiated by the concerned District Magistrate.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

As there is no use keeping the Rule pending, WPCRC 23 of 2024 is discharged and CPAN 1121 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of.

¶11

Key takeaways

The tenor of this Court's earlier direction was that due process of law shall be followed and eviction proceedings initiated in due deference; compliance is treated as underway because the District Magistrate found prima facie unauthorized occupation and referred the matter to the SDO.ratio¶7
It is expected that the proceeding before the SDO shall culminate at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of this order.obiter¶8
The petitioner is left at liberty, if subsequently aggrieved by any action or inaction of the authorities, to prefer a fresh challenge by way of a writ petition or otherwise as provided in law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — discharge of Rule arising out of CPAN 1121 of 2023 in respect of WPA 25262 of 2022 (order dated July 4, 2023) — alleged contemnor present; affidavit-of-compliance filed and kept on record, substantially corroborating counsel's stand — matter referred by District Magistrate to SDO after prima facie finding of unauthorized occupation; day of order stated to be the SDO hearing date — petitioner's grievance that eviction proceedings not yet initiated despite earlier direction tied to the Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 — Court holds no contempt subsists since due process already initiated — Rule discharged, CPAN disposed of — proceeding expected to conclude preferably within two months — petitioner retains liberty to mount fresh challenge — further personal appearance of alleged contemnor dispensed with — no order as to costs.

¶1

D/L. 2. February 16, 2024. MNS.

¶2

WPCRC 23 of 2024

¶3

Arising out of CPAN 1121 of 2023

WPA 25262 of 2022

Aparna Das

Vs.

Tanvir Afzal & others

¶9

Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo

¶10

… for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. T. M. Siddique, Mr. T. Chakraborty

¶12

…for the alleged contemnor.

¶13

Mr. Ansar Mondal, Mr. Asish Dutta

¶14

…for the State.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that the contemnor is present in Court.

¶16

It is contended that though belated, the present incumbent, who is present in court, has complied with the order of this Court by giving a consideration in terms of the order dated July 4, 2023 passed in WPA 25262 of 2022.

¶17

Thereafter, the matter has been referred to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) for appropriate steps.

¶18

It is also submitted that today is, in fact, the date of hearing before the SDO.

¶19

¶20

The affidavit-of-compliance filed today is kept on record, which corroborates the stand taken by learned counsel for the alleged contemnor substantially.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that although the direction was if, upon such enquiry, it is revealed that the respondent no. 2 in the writ petition, that is, the District Magistrate and Collector, finds that there is any violation of the Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, due process of law shall be followed by the respondent no. 2 and eviction proceedings shall be initiated in that regard expeditiously, the same has not yet been done by the District Magistrate and as such, the Rule of contempt has not been fully satisfied.

¶22

It transpires that the tenor of the direction by this Court was that due process of law shall be followed and proceedings of eviction shall be initiated in due deference. The District Magistrate, upon query, found prima facie that there is unauthorized occupation and has referred the matter to the SDO.

¶23

It is expected that the proceeding shall culminate at the earliest, preferably within two months from this date.

¶24

¶25

However, I do not find that there is any contempt of court subsisting as of now, since due process of law has already been initiated by the concerned District Magistrate.

¶26

In such view of the matter, there is no use of keeping the Rule pending.

¶27

Accordingly, WPCRC 23 of 2024 is discharged. CPAN 1121 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty, if subsequently aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the authorities, to prefer a fresh challenge by way of a writ petition or otherwise as provided in law.

¶29

Further personal appearance of the alleged contemnor is hereby dispensed with.

¶30

There will be no order as to costs.

¶31

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶32

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Aparna Das v. Mr. Purnendu Majhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Das v. Mr. Purnendu Majhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shree Durga Industry and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Camac Leathers Private Limited and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sandipan Nag Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Laxmi Kanta Koley Vs Union of India and Ors.