M/S Sterling Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Sterling Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FMA 1450 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of without interfering with the impugned Single Judge's order; liberty effectively preserved for the petitioner to apply for conversion of the land under Section 10 of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006, with a direction to the authorities to decide preferably within one month, with hearing if necessary; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's challenge to the classification of its plot as wet-land under the Gazette Notification dated March 31, 2006 was sustainable in view of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the enactment of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006, the petitioner's plot was statutorily incorporated under the category of Wet Lands.

Ratio / Principle

Only a challenge to the vires of the 2006 Act, or to the policy behind it in principle, would entitle the petitioner to have the land classified as agricultural land.

Key takeaways

There is no scope for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.ratio¶17
Nothing in the order impugned before the Division Bench precludes the petitioner from applying in appropriate format for conversion of the subject land within the contemplation of Section 10 of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.ratio¶18
If an application for conversion is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide it as expeditiously as possible, if necessary after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, preferably within one month from the date of such application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

East Kolkata Wet Lands — classification of plot as wet-land vide Gazette Notification dated March 31, 2006 — writ petition dismissed by learned Single Judge in view of enactment of East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 and statutory incorporation of the plot in Schedule I thereof — Division Bench declined interference, holding that once the plot stood statutorily incorporated as wet-land, nothing less than a challenge to the vires of the 2006 Act or to the policy behind it in principle would entitle the petitioner to reclassification as agricultural land — however, clarification issued that the impugned order does not preclude the petitioner from applying in appropriate format for conversion of the subject land under Section 10 of the 2006 Act — authorities to consider and decide such application expeditiously, if necessary after opportunity of hearing, preferably within one month — appeal (FMA 1450 of 2025) disposed of with connected application (CAN 1 of 2025), no order as to costs.

1

D/L37 18.11.2025 Rohit ct.no.16

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

FMA 1450 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025

M/s Sterling FinvestPvt Ltd Versus The State of West Bengal &Ors

Mr. Partha Chakraborty Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta …for the Appellant

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed. The primary prayer in the writ petition was a challenge thrown to the classification of the petitioner’s land as a wet-land. According to the petitioner, the subject property was all along being recorded as agricultural land or danga , but was all on a sudden, in the year 2006, shown in the records as wet-land.

2

Challenging the same, a representation was given, with an alternative prayer for conversion of the land from wet-land to commercial user.

In the writ petition also, the primarily relief sought was a challenge thrown to the Gazette Notification dated March 31, 2006 whereby the petitioner’s plot, along with others, was shown as a wet-land.

The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that in view of the enactment of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006, the petitioner’s land was incorporated in Schedule I whereof, the challenge of the petitioner to the concerned Notification was bad in law.

Learned Counsel for the appellant, during arguments before us, submits that the petitioner would be content if at least the alternative prayer in the representation of the petitioner and the writ petition, to the effect that the prayer for the land to be converted from a wet-land to user for commercial purposes is allowed.

On a careful perusal of the order, we find that the plinth of the prayer was a challenge being thrown to the concerned Notification whereby the petitioner’s land was classified as a wet-land. We agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge to the effect that in view of the enactment of the 2006 Act, the

3

petitioner’s plot was statutorily incorporated under the category of Wet Lands. Nothing less than a challenge to the vires of the said statute, or to the policy behind it in principle, would entail the petitioner to have the said land classified as agricultural land.

Thus, we do not find any scope of interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

However, it is made clear that nothing in the order impugned before us shall preclude the petitioner from applying in appropriate format for conversion of the subject land within the contemplation of Section 10 of the East Kolkata Wet Lands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006.

If such an application for conversion is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and decide on the same, if necessary by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within one month from the date of such application.

Accordingly, FMA 1450 of 2025 is disposed of along with CAN 1 of 2025, without interfering with the impugned order but in the light of the above observations.

No order as to costs.

4

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)