Disposed¶34

Hyder Ali Mondal v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Dec 2025WPA(P)/123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forest land encroachment eviction; Indian Forest Act, 1927; PIL by petitioner found to be an encroacher - no relief due; mandamus for demolition of unauthorized construction, dag no. 830, mouza Chak uprasole, Bishnupur, Bankura; State affidavit - status quo maintained during pendency of writ petition; direction to remove all illegal encroachments within 90 days; Calcutta High Court; disposed of without merits opinion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to take immediate action against all illegal encroachments, including that of the petitioner, and remove them in accordance with law, completing the exercise within 90 days; Government Counsel to communicate the order to the concerned authorities. Disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. ¶34

Hyder Ali Mondal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be commanded to stop and demolish the alleged unauthorized construction over dag no. 830, J.L.No. 160, mouza Chak uprasole, Block-Bishnupur, P.S.-Bishnupur, District-Bankura in view of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.2.2022. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

In the larger public interest, the respondents are directed to take immediate action against all illegal encroachments, including that of the petitioner, and remove them in accordance with law, completing the exercise within 90 days; the Government Counsel shall communicate this order to the concerned authorities.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The court found no reason to disbelieve the documents filed by the petitioner himself and the report averments showing that the petitioner is an encroacher; therefore, at the behest of such a petitioner, no relief is due in this PIL.

¶21

Key takeaways

A plain reading of the State's affidavit shows that the land in question is certainly a forest land and encroachments exist which were already noticed by the respondents, yet the proceedings were not taken to a logical end, the reason shown being the pendency of this case.ratio¶30
Once illegal construction or encroachment is noticed in forest land, the Department was under an obligation to remove such encroachment and restore the land in its original form.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL (W.P.A. (P) 123 of 2022, Calcutta High Court, Sujoy Paul, ACJ. and Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) by Hyder Ali Mondal seeking demolition of alleged unauthorized construction on forest land (dag no. 830, J.L.No. 160, mouza Chak uprasole, Block/P.S.-Bishnupur, District-Bankura) under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and consideration of his representation dated 11.2.2022: disposed of. Relying on the petitioner's own communication dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P4) and the respondents' report, and noting that no exception was filed despite time granted, the court held that the petitioner is himself an encroacher and no relief is due to such a petitioner in a PIL. Observing from the State's affidavit that the land is forest land where encroachments had already been noticed but eviction was stalled citing the pendency of the writ petition, the court held that once illegal construction or encroachment is noticed on forest land the Department is obliged to remove it and restore the land, and directed the respondents to take immediate action against all illegal encroachments, including the petitioner's, in accordance with law within 90 days - without expressing any opinion on merits.

¶1

01.12.2025 Item No.53 Ct. No. 1 KS

¶2

W.P.A. (P) 123 of 2022

¶3

Hyder Ali Mondal

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv.

¶7

Ms. Sujata Mukherjee

¶8

…..For the State

¶9

Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Ms. Shefa Mondal

¶10

…..For the Private Respondent

¶11

PER, SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.:

¶12

None for the petitioner.

¶13

Finally heard.

¶14

In the petition, following relief is claimed:-

¶15

(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents, servants and associates and each one of them to stop the unauthorized construction and necessary order be passed for demolition of the unauthorized construction over dag no. 830, J.L.No. 160, mouza- Chak uprasole, under block-Bishnupur, Police station-Bishnupur, District-Bankura in view of the provision of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 thereof and further commanding them to take necessary steps in accordance with law by considering the representation dated 11.2.2022 being annexure P-5 of this writ application;

¶16

(b) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records of the case before this Hon'ble High Court so that proper Justice may be administered by demolishing the unauthorized construction made by the respondent no.8;

¶17

(c) A Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) and (b) and made the Rule absolute after hearing the parties;

¶18

(d) An ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a);

¶19

(e) Any other order or orders, writ or writs and/or direction or directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper;”

¶20

¶21

During the course of hearing ld. Counsel for the official and private respondents pointed out that petitioner himself is an encroacher, which is evident from communication dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P4) and also the documents filed alongwith the report. Petitioner previously prayed for time to file exception but, no such exception has been filed, till date. Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve documents filed by petitioner himself as well as the averments of report and documents filed therewith which shows that petitioner himself is an encroacher. Thus, at the behest of such a petitioner, no relief is due in this PIL.

¶22

Interestingly, State has filed a report in the form

¶23

of affidavit and averred as under:-

¶24

“ 11. That from Annexure R1 herein and Annexure P1 of the Writ Petition, it becomes abundantly clear that the land in question is a Forest Land. That it is submitted that there is usage of Forest area for non forest purpose and it has become settled law that no non forest activity can be permitted. The occupation/ construction etc on Forest land is completely illegal.

¶25

12. That I submit that, while the Range Officer, Bankadaha Range, was in process to evict the

¶26

¶27

illegal encroachment the office of the respondent have received one copy of the writ petition on 18.11.2022 being WPA No. (P)-123 of 2022 filed before Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, which is pending for adjudication.

¶28

13. That I further submit that as per report received from Range Officer, Bankadaha Range, since this instant writ petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court for its final adjudication, therefore same status has been maintained as previous.”

¶29

A plain reading of this paragraphs shows that the

¶30

land in question is certainly a forest land and there exists encroachments, which are already noticed by respondents (paragraph 12). However, for a strange reason, they have not taken the proceedings to a logical end and reasons shown is pendency of this case. In our

¶31

opinion, once illegal construction or encroachment is noticed in the forest land, the Department was under an obligation to remove such encroachment and restore the land in its original form. Thus, in the larger public interest, we direct the respondents shall take immediate action against all illegal encroachments including that of the petitioners and remove them in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be

¶32

¶33

completed within 90 days from today. The Government Counsel shall communicate this order to the concerned authorities.

¶34