Beldanga -Ii Panchayat Samity and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

¶3

MAT No. 1592 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025

¶4

Beldanga-II Panchayat Samity and another Versus

¶5

State of West Bengal and others

¶6

For the appellants	:	Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Snr. Adv. Mr. Subhankar Das Mr. Neil Basu Mr. Sankha Biswas
For the State	:	Mr. Supratim Dhar, Snr. Adv. Mr. Santimoy Bhattacharyya
Heard On	:	04.12.2025, 11.12.2025, 08.01.2026 & 22.01.2026
Reserved On	:	22.01.2026
Judgment On	:	03.02.2026

¶7

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:

¶8

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Beldanga-II Panchayat Samity, Murshidabad (hereinafter to be referred to as the Panchayat Samity)represented by its Sabhapati and Beauty Begam, the Sabhapati of the said Panchayat Samity.

¶9

2. The present appellants were the writ petitioners who had preferred the writ petition.

¶10

2

¶11

3. The learned Single Judge, while hearing the writ petition being WPA 21181 of 2025, passed an interim order dated 10.09.2025.

¶12

4. Through the impugned order the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the following:

¶13

“... 4. In view of such, the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and the Principal Secretary, Land and Land Reforms and Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department are directed to hold a joint meeting positively within 15 working days from today and the minutes of such meeting shall have to be placed before this Court by the learned Advocate for the respondents/State on the adjourned date that is on November 6, 2025 when the instant matter will be listed under the heading “Adjourned Motion”.

¶14

5. In view of such, this Court finds no reason to pass any interim order as prayed for at this stage.”

¶15

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforementioned order, refusing to grant interim relief as sought for in the writ petition, the writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.

¶16

6. Factual Matrix of the lis

¶17

On 17.07.2025 the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad issued a letter addressing the Executive Officer of the said Panchayat Samity stating the following:

¶18

“1. It has come to the notice of the undersigned that Narkelbari Ferry Ghat has been settled in favour of Shakti Chamoch Mill by the Beldanga-II Panchayet Samity.

¶19

3

¶20

2. This act of settlement is irregular and constitutes an overreach of jurisdiction. As per Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual, 1991, it is categorically stated:

¶21

"Public ferries and non-public ferries (1) Ferries which have been declared as public ferries under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, shall be exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate. subject to the direction of the Commissioner."

¶22

It is pertinent to emphasise the statutory use of the word "shall" which denotes a mandatory provision.

¶23

3. Moreover, as per Section 110 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the management of any ferry may be entrusted to a Panchayat Samity only if such power is delegated by the State Government, and that too with the approval of the Cabinet. In the absence of such explicit approval, no authority lies with the Panchayat Samity to undertake such settlements.

¶24

4. In the absence of explicit Cabinet approval, the said settlement stands in contravention of the prescribed Rules of Business of the State Government.”

¶25

A tender was floated on 20.08.2025 by the Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad (for short ADM and DL & LRO) for the Narkelbari ferry with Khutagari Ghat under the Sub-Division Behrampur Sadar within district Murshidabad, seeking submission of bids from the bidders for the said ferry.

¶26

This notice issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad is the subject-matter of dispute and has given rise to the lis.

¶27

The writ petitioners filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

4

¶29

“- a) An order do issue thereby permitting the petitioners to move this instant writ petition without serving notice upon the respondents dispensing Rule 26 of Writ Rules;

¶30

b) A Writ Mandamus, in the nature commanding of the respondents, each one of them, their servants, agents and/or assigns to rescind, cancel and/or withdraw and / or set aside the restrain order dated 17.07.2025, issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad in respect of Narkelbari Ferry Ghat in the District of Murshidabad, forthwith;

¶31

c) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents, each one of them, their servants, agents and/or assigns to rescind, cancel and/or withdraw and / or set aside the tender notice dated 20.08.2025, issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad in respect of the Narkelbari Ferry Ghat in the District of Murshidabad, forthwith;

¶32

d) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents, each one of them, their servants, agents and/or assigns to allow the petitioners to maintain and control all the 6 Ferry Ghats including Narkelbari Ferry Ghat under Beldanga - II Block in the District of Murshidabad, forthwith;

¶33

e) A writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case forming the basis of restrain order dated 17.07.2025, issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad, to this Hon'ble Court and to certify them and on being so certified, quash the same so that conscionable justice may be administered to the parties;

¶34

f) A writ in the nature of prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondents from giving any effect and / or further effects to the restrain order dated 17.07.2025, issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad and tender notice dated 20.08.2025, issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land and

¶35

5

¶36

Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad in respect of the Narkelbari Ferry Ghat, in any manner whatsoever;

¶37

g) Rule NISI in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) as above; h) An order do issue restraining the respondent authorities from giving any effect and / or further effect to the restrain order dated 17.07.2025, issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad and tender notice dated 20.08.2025, issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad in respect of the Narkelbari Ferry Ghat;

¶38

i) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities to allow and continue the petitioners to maintain and control all the 6 Ferry Ghats including Narkelbari Ferry Ghat under Beldanga - II Block in the District of Murshidabad.

¶39

j) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (h) and (i) as above;

¶40

k) And to pass such further order or orders as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper;”

¶41

In the said writ petition the impugned order has been passed which is the bone of contention.

¶42

7. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy Ld. Senior Advocate representing the appellants, during his exhaustive submissions, has stated the following:

¶43

i) On 07.03.1979 Government of West Bengal office of the Board of Revenue published notification wherein and whereunder it has been stated that in case any khas or vested tanks whose jurisdiction extends over more than one gram Panchayat, such khas or vested tank should be handed over to the Panchayat Samity.

¶44

6

¶45

ii) He has further submitted that the said notification also prescribes that in respect of vested ferries Panchayat Samitywise list of such ferries in respect of which the lease or settlement expires on the last day of Chaitra, 1385 BS should be prepared immediately and such ferries be formally handed over to the respective Panchayat Samities.

¶46

iii) He has also been submitted that on 22.06.1987 the Government of West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Department published a notification wherein it has been prescribed that the khas land, vested tanks and ferries which were handed over by the Collectors to the Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samities, or Zilla Parishads as the case may be in pursuance of the Memo No. 2634 (15)-GE(M) dated 07.03.1979 of the Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal shall be deemed to have been always managed and continue to be managed by the respective Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitiesor Zilla Parishads on and from the date on which the said tanks and ferries were handed over to them by the Collectors.

¶47

iv) He has further submitted that during the year 1987 in terms of Section 110 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (for short the 1973 Act) and the Government Order dated 07.03.1979 and by 22.06.1987, the State Government with consent of the

¶48

7

¶49

appellant No. 1 handed over six ferry ghats situated under the jurisdiction of the appellant No.1, the said Panchayat Samity.

¶50

v) He has been further submitted that since the year 1987 the said Panchayat Samity by way of floating separate tenders are settling all those six ferry ghats through public auction.

¶51

vi) He has also submitted that on 29.07.2024 the last e –tender for all those six ferry ghats including Narkelbari ferry ghat had been floated by the appellants.

¶52

vii) He also submitted that on 25.09.2024 work order had been issued for the period from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2025.

¶53

viii) On 17.07.2025 District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad passed restraint order only in respect of Narkelbari ferry ghat. Threafter on 13.08.2025 resolution has been adopted by the Panchayat Samity against the said restraint order and on 20.08.2025 tender has been floated in respect of the Ghat by the ADM and DL & LRO.

¶54

ix) He has been further submitted that in terms of the two government notifications dated 07.03.1979 and 22.06.1987 all the six ferry ghats including the said ghat have been handed over to the appellants in the year 1987 and since then without any interruption all the six ferry ghats are being maintained and controlled by the Panchayat Samity by way of settling the same through public auction.

¶55

8

¶56

x) On 20.08.2025 to the utter surprise of the Panchayat Samity the ADM and DL & LRO floated a tender only in respect of the Narkelbari Ferry Ghat for the period of next three years.

¶57

xi) He has further submitted that the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad passed an order on 17.07.2025 restraining the appellants from further settlements of the Narkelbari Ferry Ghat by relying upon Clause 281 of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual 1991 (for short the 1991 Manual) and Section 110 of the 1973 Act.

¶58

xii) He has further submitted that in respect of only one ferry ghat restraint order has been passed and e-tender has been floated but not in respect of the other five ferry ghats.

¶59

xiii) The Ld. Advocate has relied upon Section 94 (4) of the 1973 Act and has submitted that the Panchayat Samity is a body corporate local self government and it has separate identity.

¶60

xiv) He has been submitted that Section 110 of the 1973 Act does not prescribe for approval by the Cabinet prior to handing over ferry ghats to the Panchayat Samiites.

¶61

xv) He has also been submitted that without giving any show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the learned District Magistrate has straightaway passed order restraining further settlement of the said Narkelbari ferry ghat and that too without any prior intimation; restraint order

¶62

9

¶63

cannot be passed as Section 110 of the 1973 Act clearly indicates that at the time of withdrawal prior consent is required from the concerned Panchayat Samity.

¶64

xvi) Relying on Section 212 of the 1973 Act, he submits that the instructions of the State Government are binding upon the Panchayat Samity if such instructions are in conformity with the provisions of the 1973 Act.

¶65

xvii) He has relied upon Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 and has submitted that Clauses of the manual have no statutory force and it does not have any overriding effect upon the statute.

¶66

xviii) He has further submitted that the order of the District Magistrate Murshidabad which is the impugned order in the writ petition cannot be termed as the policy decision of the State since District Magistrates have no authority to take policy decisions on behalf of the State.

¶67

xix) He has further submitted that neither in the introductory part nor in the preamble part of the said manual there is any mentioning that invoking which provision of law /statute the said manual 1991 has been prepared as such it is nothing but an executive instruction having no statutory force.

¶68

xx) He has further submitted that relying on repeal and saving Clause – 5 of the 1991 manual and the said manual prescribes

¶69

10

¶70

that notwithstanding the provision of Rule - 4 anything done or any action taken in accordance with the provision of any manual order or notification of the State Government or the West Bengal Board of Revenue on or before the date of coming into force of this Manual shall be deemed to have been validly done and taken accordingly. Since both the two notifications dated 07.03.1979 and 22.06.1987 have come into force prior to coming into the manual 1991, ferry ghats handed over to the appellants pursuant to those two memos have validly been done and taken.

¶71

xxi) The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Falta Fort Refugee Fisherman’s Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Additional District Magistrate (E.A.) 24 Parganas and others published in (1975) 1 CLJ 117 Para-5.

¶72

xxii) The learned counsel in reply to the point of maintainability raised on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that before the learned Single Judge the issue of maintainability was not raised at the first instance before this Bench as such State is barred to raise the said issue at this juncture. He has further submitted that since Panchayat Samities are being governed under the provisions of the Panchayat Act and Section 212 of the said Act suggests that direction of the State are binding

¶73

11

¶74

upon the Panchayat Samities if such direction are in conformity with the Panchayat Act, 1973; as such Land Reforms Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings to effectively adjudicate the issue by dealing with the provisions of the 1973 Act.

¶75

xxiii) He has further submitted that the notification dated 22.06.1987 is the last notification on the subject issue which prescribes that the ferries which have been handed over to the Panchayat Samities pursuant to the memo dated 07.03.1979 of the Board of Revenue Government of West Bengal shall be deemed to have been always managed and shall continue to be managed by the respective Panchayat Samities.

¶76

xxiv) He has further submitted that saving Clause 5 of the Manual 1991 in no uncertain terms suggests that if anything is done or if any action is taken in terms of order or notification issued by the Board of Revenue Government of West Bengal or State Government prior to the said manual coming into force the same shall be deemed to have been validly done and taken.

¶77

xxv) He has further submitted that in the present case all the six ferry ghats including Narkelbari ferry ghat have been handed over to the Panchayat Samity in terms of the Board of Revenue order dated 07.03.1979 and notification of the Land &Land Reforms Department dated 22.06.1987 the same has been

¶78

12

¶79

validly handed over and the 1991 Manual has no overriding effect so far as handing over possession of management and control of the ferry ghats to the appellant Panchayat Samity is concerned.

¶80

xxvi) He has further submitted that Section 212 of the 1973 Act states that Panchayat Samities are only liable to act on the basis of the instruction or direction of the State Government but such instruction and direction of the State Government must be in conformity with the provision with the 1973 Act.

¶81

xxvii) He has further stated that in the case of L. Chandrakumar only the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been dealt with but the said judgment does not say that the provisions of Panchayat Act relying on which the impugned restraint order has been passed by the District Magistrate comes under the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal.

¶82

Banking upon the aforesaid facts the learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the restraint order passed by the learned ADM and DL&LRO.

¶83

8. Per contra learned Senior Advocate Mr. Supratim Dhar representing the State submitted at length controverting the submissions of the learned counsel representing the appellant /writ petitioner and has placed the following:

¶84

13

¶85

i) First of all he has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition and in consequence the present appeal before this Court.

¶86

ii) Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and specifically citing Paragraph 93 he has stressed upon the issue that power and jurisdiction of Tribunal constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to hear the present lis.

¶87

iii) He has also relied upon Paragraphs 1, 9 to 16, 19, 24 to 33 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Ashish Kr. Roy and Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 110 .

¶88

iv) He has emphasized upon the fact that there is exclusion of jurisdiction of all Courts except a Division Bench of the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court of India in respect of matters arising out of land reforms of tenancy in land. He has also submitted that the jurisdiction lies upon the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

¶89

v) He has also relied upon a judgment of a coordinate Division Bench of this Court passed in the matter of Jiaganj Azimganj

¶90

14

¶91

Boatman Ferry Ghat Co-operative Transport Society Ltd and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors . to substantiate his argument that dispute in settlement of ferry is to be adjudicated by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance.

¶92

vi) He has further submitted that since the settlement of Sairati interests including ferries (lease or licence) are executed following the rules of the 1991 Manual which has got the sanction of Section 52 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1955 Act) and the rules made under 28A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 (for short the 1965 Rules), any dispute regarding the settlement of ferries is to be adjudicated by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in the first instance as the 1955 Act is a “specified Act” as has been mentioned under Section 2(r) of the 1997 Act. As such, both the present appeal and the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal are not maintainable in the present form.

¶93

vii) He has further submitted that there is no illegality or discrimination or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Magistrate and the DL & LRO in issuing the order dated 17.07.2025 and the e-tender for settlement of the subject ferry.

¶94

15

¶95

viii) He has further submitted that one of the first rules which the government promulgated in 1772 AD was to suppress the Sayer duties levied in West Bengal.

¶96

ix) He has further submitted that on 11.06.1970 a Regulation was promulgated for the guidance of the Board of Revenue with reference to Sayer for internal duties and the Regulation was directed against such Sayer duties as were levied in haats or bazars.

¶97

x) He has further submitted that in the year 1816 the government considered it expedient that all ferries should be placed under the complete control of the Collectors of Land Revenue. Thereafter it was repealed in the year 1819 by Regulation 6 and the ferries were then placed under the superintendence of the Magistrate. All important ferries were declared public and the Magistrate had the power. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case between Ranendra Narayan Sinha and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1970) 3 SCC 109 and has relied upon Paragraph 5.

¶98

xi) He has further submitted that the West Bengal Government Estates Manual 1953 has not conferred any right to local bodies for settlement of ferries.

¶99

16

¶100

xii) He has also submitted that Rule 226 to 231 of the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1997 which has replaced the West Bengal Government Estates Manual lays down that ferries which have been declared as pubic ferries under the Bengal ferries Act, 1985 shall be exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate subject to the direction of the Commissioner and will be governed by the provision of the said act. He has further submitted that public ferries are under the administrative control of the Public Works Department and ferries other than those declared as public ferries that is those vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act as also the old khasmahal ferries will be governed by Rule 228 of the said rule. Rule 228 states that settlement of ferries should be made by public auction subject to the condition that the Collector will not be bound to accept the highest offer and while rejecting the highest offer the Collector should give in writing the reasons for doing so.

¶101

xiii) He has further submitted that rules laid down in the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977 also reveals that no local body like panchayat etc. was empowered to settle ferries or give licence in respect of ferries to anybody.

¶102

xiv) He has further submitted that the appellants/petitioners have relied upon order No. 2634 (15)-GE(M) dated 07.03.1979

¶103

17

¶104

wherein there has been direction passed for preparation of list of vested ferries for handing over to the Panchayat Samity or the Zilla Parishad as the case may be. He has further submitted that vide the subsequent Order No. 5777 (18) GE(M) dated 17/21.05.1979 the Board of Revenue clarified that Sayrati interest such as khas or vested water areas ferries etc, which are State Government’s property would not vest with the panchayats with the making over of such properties to the panchayat institutions, the said Sayrati interests are being handed over to the Panchayats only for management and control by them but the properties will continue to be the properties of the land and Land Reforms Department, Board of Revenue West Bengal and further clarified that government can resume the property at any time from panchayats without payment of any compensation.

¶105

xv) Vide the subsequent order number 3868 (18)-GE(M) /425 /78 (Pt 1) dated 14/17.03.1980 of the Board of Revenue it has been further clarified that public ferries should remain exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate as per Rule 227 of the 1977 Manual. He has further submitted that the words “exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate as per Rule 227” signify that Panchayat or any local body had not been given the power to settle such public ferries in any manner.

¶106

18

¶107

xvi) He has further submitted that through the order No. 484-L dated 22.06.1997 of the L & LR departmentit has been made clear that the power given to the panchayats to settle the ferries by this order is always restricted and dependent on the subsequent rules and notifications.

¶108

xvii) He has further submitted that during the issuance of Order No. 484-L dated 22.06.1987 Rules 226 to 231 of the 1977 Manual was the guiding rules and two clarificatory orders being order No. 5777 dated 17/21.05.1979 and 2868(18) dated 14/17 were also in force.

¶109

xviii) He has further submitted that the 1955 Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette vide notification No. 819-L dated 30.03.1956 and Section 52 of the said Act recognizes the management of government lands by the Collector only.

¶110

xix) He has further submitted that Rule 28A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 provides for the management of all lands and all interests belonging to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of 1991 Manual.

¶111

xx) He has further submitted that as per Section 62 of the 1955 Act the 1991 Manual has got the full sanction of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and contains the set of rules which are in force for the time being.

¶112

19

¶113

xxi) He has further submitted that vide Rule 266 of the 1991 Manual as amended by notification No. 4650 dated 10.12.2001 and further amendment by Notification No. 757 dated 25.02.2016 lays down that the management of public ferries have not been transferred to the Panchayat Samity it implies that Panchayat or any local body has no jurisdiction to settle or give short-term licence in respect of public ferries at any point of time.

¶114

xxii) He has further submitted that as per Rule 281(ii) of the Manual 1991 amended in 2001 prescribed that non-public vested and khasmahal ferries should be settled by DL& LROs only and shall be exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate subject to the direction of the Commissioner and these are now under the administrative control under the Public Works Department and other vested and khasmahal ferries will be governed by (ii) VII of this Rule which provides that ferries should b settled by the DL & LRO Officer by public auction to be held at least three months before the date from which the settlement is to have effect.

¶115

xxiii) He has further submitted that Rule 281 of the 1991 Manual provides that public ferries shall be exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate and other vested and

¶116

20

¶117

khasmahal and non-public ferries will be settled by the DL & LRO.

¶118

xxiv) He has further submitted that upon a harmonious construction of Rule 266, 281 (i) and 281(ii) of the 1991 Manual as amended it is evident that Panchayat or any other local body has no power to settle or to give short-term licence in respect of both public ferries as well as other vested and khasmahal ferries while all are to be settled by the office of the District Magistrate including ADM and DL & LRO.

¶119

xxv) He has further submitted that Order No. 484-L dated 22.06.1987 was always subject to directions issued or may be issued by the Government from time to time and therefore was also subjected to Rule 266 and 281 of the 1991 Manual as amended. So, saving clause of Rule 5 of the 1991 Manual has no application in this case and at best can only validate the settlement if any given by the Panchayat Samity prior to promulgation of the 1991 Manual.In this context, the Ld. Counsel has relied upon Paragraph 19 and 20 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M. A. Rasheed and ors.

¶120

xxvi) He has further submitted that power to settle or to give licence for short term settlement cannot be disassociated from the

¶121

21

¶122

ownership and power to control and management by the district authorities as prescribed in Rules 281.

¶123

xxvii) He has further submitted that literal interpretation of the statute and rules and the legislative intentions do not suggest that though the ownership management and control of ferries shall lie with the District Magistrate and DL & LRO but panchayat will continue to settle or give short term licence in respect of ferries.

¶124

xxviii) He has further submitted that ownership management and control of ferries by the District Magistrate and DL & LRO include their power to settle the ferries under the law.

¶125

xxix) He has further submitted that as per the report of the ADM and the DL & LRO Murshidabad addressed to the Director of Land Records and Surveys and Joint Land Reforms commissioner, West Bengal dated 19.12.2025 Narkelbari ferry ghat is a public ferry and it has also been reported that the ferry is situated at the bank of the river Bhagirati which is on the national waterway-1 as declared under the National Waterways Act, 2016 and the national waterways (Allahabad-Haldia stretch) of the GangaBhagirati-Hooghly River Act, 1982 so the management maintenance settlement of the subject ferry should be always in the hand of District Administration.

¶126

22

¶127

xxx) He has further submitted that if any repugnancy arises between Section 52 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which gives sanction to the 1991 Manual, and any provision of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the 1955 Act will prevail.

¶128

xxxi) He has further submitted that the earlier settlement of the subject ferry has expired and the district administration has taken up the charge of settlement of the said ferry as per Rule 266 and 281 of the 1991 Manual.

¶129

Relying upon the aforementioned submission, the Ld. Counsel has reiterated that whatever actions have been taken by the respondent District Magistrate and DL & LRO are within their jurisdiction and supported by law as such the Memorandum of Appeal and pending writ petition are liable to be dismissed.

¶130

9. From the submission of the learned counsel it transpires that the following questions are to be considered:

¶131

i) Whether the present appeal and \ the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal are at all maintainable or not.

¶132

ii) Whether the letter of restraint dated 17.07.2025 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad is in accordance with the provisions of law or not.

¶133

10. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition and the present appeal, it is a fact that the issue revolves around a letter issued by the

¶134

23

¶135

District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad restraining the BeldangaII Panchayat Samity from further settlement of Narkelbari ferry ghat. So the issue involves settlement of a ferry ghat and the dispute is between the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad and the Beldanga-II Panchayat Samity. The issue also involves the Rules laid down in the 1991 Manual and also the provisions of the 1973 Act. To deal with the entire aspect, it is this Court which has the jurisdiction; as such, the issue of maintainability raised on behalf of the Respondent State does not have any legs to stand upon.

¶136

11. Now as regards the issuance of notice,first of all the notice is to be considered, which is as under:

¶137

“Memo No.: 2372/En/X-35A/C/2025 Date: 17.07.2025 From : The District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad

¶138

To : The Execute Officer, Beldanga-II Panchayat Samity, Murshidabad

¶139

Sub: Restraint from further settlement of Narkelbari Ferry Ghat by Beldanga –II Panchayet Samity

¶140

1. It has come to the notice of the undersigned that Narkelbari Ferry Ghat has been settled in favour of Shakti Chamoch Mill by the Beldanga-II Panchayet Samity.

¶141

2. This act of settlement is irregular and constitutes an overreach of jurisdiction. As per Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual, 1991, it is categorically stated:

¶142

24

¶143

"Public ferries and non-public ferries (1) Ferries which have been declared as public ferries under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, shall be exclusively under the control of the District Magistrate. subject to the direction of the Commissioner."

¶144

It is pertinent to emphasise the statutory use of the word "shall" which denotes a mandatory provision.

¶145

3. Moreover, as per Section 110 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the management of any ferry may be entrusted to a Panchayat Samity only if such power is delegated by the State Government, and that too with the approval of the Cabinet. In the absence of such explicit approval, no authority lies with the Panchayat Samity to undertake such settlements.

¶146

4. In the absence of explicit Cabinet approval, the said settlement stands in contravention of the prescribed Rules of Business of the State Government.

¶147

5. It is , therefore, directed that the practice of holding tenders of entering into settlements for such ferry ghats by the Panchayat Samity must cease forthwith, as such actions are in cleart violation of the West Bengla Financial Rules and may lead to potential losses to the Consolidated Fund of the State, besides amounting to diversion of public revenue.

¶148

District Magistrate & Collector Murshidabad.

¶149

Date: 17.07.2025

¶150

Memo No. 2372/1(2)/X-35A/C/25

¶151

Copy forwarded for kind information to:

¶152

1. The Additional Chief Secretary and Land Reforms Commissioner, to the Govt. of West Bengal Land & Land Reforms and Refugee Relief & Rehabilitation Department, Nbanna 325 Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah-711102.

¶153

25

¶154

2. The Director of Land Records & Surveys and Joint LRC , Land & Land Reforms and Refugee Relief a& Rehabilitation Department, Govt. of West Bengal 35 Gopalnagar Road. Kolkata -27”

¶155

12. As regards to the second point, on perusal of the said letter it transpires that the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad has directed restraining further settlement of the said ferry ghat relying upon Rule 281 of the 1991 Manual which has drawn authority from the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. In addition to the above, Section 110 of the 1973 Act has also been quoted.

¶156

As regards to applicability of the said Manual, this Court relies upon Paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case between Falta Fort Refugee Fishermen’s Co-operative Societies Ltd. Vs. Additional District Magistrate (E.A.)24 Parganas and others reported in (1975) 1 CLJ 117 wherein the following has been laid down:

¶157

“ ... we hold that the said Estate Manual only contains Executive orders made by the Government in respect of the administration of its own properties and cannot be considered as statutory Rules and as such orders made or steps taken thereunder are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Government can own property and deal with it in any manner which is permissible under the law. If there is any statute which imposes a restriction or if there are any statutory Rules which compel a certain procedure to be followed, that is another matter, and Government would have to follow it.”

¶158

26

¶159

So from the aforementioned judgment it transpires that Manuals are only Executive orders by the Government for the administration of its own properties and so such orders made or steps taken thereunder are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶160

The matter as regards to settlement of ferries took a turn from the notification of the Government of West Bengal, Office of the Board of Revenue dated 07.03.1979, wherein handing over of vested ferries to respective Panchayat Samities has arisen.

¶161

Thereafter from another notification of the same office dated 17/21.05.1979 it reveals that Sairati interests in respect of ferries which are State Government’s property will not vest in the Panchayats with the making over of such properties to the Panchayat institutions. The said Sairati interests were being handed over to the panchayats only for management and control by them and the properties were to continue to be the properties of the L.U. &R and L.& L.R. Dept./ Boards of Revenue, West Bengal. It also states that if and whenthe Government would require any such property for any purpose it would be free to resume possession. The said notification further states that since the Panchayats could hold the properties only for management and control, they will have no right to dispose of or alienate any such property in any manner except by way of short-term lease /licence subject to the right of the L.U. &R and L.& L.R. Dept./ Boards of

¶162

27

¶163

Revenue to resume. Relevant portion of the said notification is placed

¶164

hereinbelow:

¶165

“GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL

¶166

Office of the Board of Revenue, West Bengal Section-A-III G.E. (M) Branch No. 5777 (18)-GE(M)Dated: 17/21.5.1979

¶167

To: The Addl. District Magistrate (L.R.)/Addl. Deputy Commissioner (L.R.),.........

¶168

Sub: Making over of all khas or vested tanks, ferries etc. to the Panchayat Institutions.

¶169

In Board's Memo No. 2634/1(22)GE(M) dated 7.3.79 instructions were issued for making ove or vested tanks and ferries to the Panchayat Institutions in phases in accordance with the deci the Cabinet SubCommittee on Panchayat Institutions.

¶170

It is clarified for his information that Sairati interests such as Khas or vested water areas, hats. ferries etc. which are State Govt.'s property will not vest in the Panchayats with the making o such properties to the Panchayat Institutions. The said Sairati interests are being handed over to Panchayat only for management and control by them. The Properties will thus continue to be t properties of the L.U. & R. and L. & L.R. Dept./Boards of Revenue, West Bengal.

¶171

It may also be noted that if and when Govt. would require any such property for any purpose in be free to resume possession without payment of any compensation to either the Panchayat Institutions or the lessees/licenses.

¶172

Since the Panchayats would hold the Properties only for management and control they will hav right to dispose of or alienate any such property in any manner except by way of short term lease/license subject to the right of the L.U. &R. and L. & L. R. Dept/Board of Revenue to resume. Further since the properties would continue to be the properties of the L.U. & R and L & L.R. Dept/Board of Revenue, provisions of the G.E. Manual would be applicable

¶173

28

¶174

with such modification or circulars as may be issued from time to time for the purpose of leasig out those properties under the Panchayats. ....”

¶175

13. So it transpires that if Government requires any such property for anypurpose it would be free to resume possession.

¶176

The moot point for contention being the letter dated 17.07.2025 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad, which the appellants/ writ petitioners have sought for cancellation and/or withdrawal and/or setting aside, this Court takes into consideration that through the said letter the said District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad has stated the act of settlement made by the appellants/petitioners as irregular and being an overreach of jurisdiction. Throughthe said letter it has further been stated that in the absence of explicit Cabinet approval, such settlement stands in contravention of the prescribed rules of business of the State Government and it has been directed that the practice of holding tenders or entering into settlements for such ferry ghats by the Panchayat Samity must cease forthwith and such actions are in clear violation of the West Bengal Financial Rules and may lead to potential losses to the consolidated fund of the State besides amounting to diversion of public revenue. The said letter also relies upon Rule 281 of the 1991 Manual and Section 110 of the 1973 Act which lays down that the management of ferry may be entrusted to a Panchayat Samity only if such power is

¶177

29

¶178

delegated by the State Government and that too with the approval of the Cabinet and in the absence of such approval no authority lies with the Panchayat Samity to undertake such settlements.

¶179

On perusal of the impugned letter issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad it transpires that the said Magistrate has conveyed through the said letter that the settlement made by the appellants writ petitioners are irregular and overreach of jurisdiction. This view of the said Magistrate is absolutely contrary to the notifications dated 07.03.1979 and 17/21.05.1979, whereby and wherein the Panchayat has been handed over the right of management and control. Not only that, as per such notifications, the Panchayats will have no right to dispose of or alienate any such property in any manner except by way of short-term lease /licence subject to the right of the L.U. &R and L.& L.R. Dept./ Boards of Revenue to resume. It has also been stated that the Government may if and when required for any purpose resume possession of such property. The Magistrate, instead of seeking resumption of possession of the said ferry ghat, has blatantly decided that the act of the Panchayat which is being performed by the appellant/writ petitioners as totally irregular and an overreach of jurisdiction and is, prima facie, not at all in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶180

Through the notification dated 07.03.1979 there was proposal for handing over the said ferry to the Panchayat Samity and the letter dated

¶181

30

¶182

17/21.05.1979 is in furtherance to the earlier notification and being subsequently affirmed by a further notification being dated 22.06.1987. through the notification dated 22.06.1987 all the khas and vested tanks and ferries belonging to the State have been directed to be managed by the Panchayats under whose respective jurisdiction the said ferries are located.

¶183

It has also been stated therein that the khas and vested tanks and ferries which have been handed over to the Panchayat Samities as per the Memo dated 07.03.1979 shall be deemed to have been always managed and shall continue to be managed by the respective Panchayat Samities from the date on which the said ferries were handed over.

¶184

In the present case, the appellants/writ petitioners have been in management and control of the concerned ferry since long and have been settling the said ferry through lease from year to year. It is fact that the Government can resume possession when the Government requires it for any purpose. Through the impugned letter, there is no seeking of resumption of possession showing any purpose. On the contrary, the said Magistrate has himself decided the said settlement to be irregular and overreach of jurisdiction, which the said Magistrate cannot. The Magistrate did not have the authority of the State behind him/her to negate the effect of the Government notifications referred to above.

¶185

It is worth mentioning that as per the judgment passed in Falta Fort Refugee Fisherman’s Cooperative Society Ltd (supra) the 1991

¶186

31

¶187

Manual has no binding effect. The notifications of the year 1979 and 1987, being prior to the year 1991, prevail over the Manual. The letter dated 17.07.2025 which is under contention is not in accordance with law, in consequence of which the restraint order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad has to be set aside.

¶188

The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Ashish Kr. Royand Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 110 do not come in aid of the respondents as this lis involves the issue of settlement of ferries by the Panchayat Samity.

¶189

In the judgment referred to on behalf of the respondents passed in the case of Ranendra Narayan Sinha and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1970) 3 SCC 109 the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim for abatement of revenue and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not liable to pay revenue in respect of the ferries which were resumed by the Government. So this judgment also does not favour the respondent.

¶190

The judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Jiyaganj Azeemganj Boatman Ferry Ghat Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. reported in (2014) SCC OnLine Cal 7592 deals with the issue of settlement of ferry service in favour of Cooperative Societies. In the said case, selection of the settlee

¶191

32

¶192

was challenged, which is not the dispute herein. As such this judgment also does not come in aid to the respondent.

¶193

14. The concerned Magistrate has floated e-tender dated 20.08.2025 in consequence of his letter dated 17.07.2025. As this Court prima facie finds the letter issued by the Magistrate, Murshidabad being not in accordance with law, as consequence thereof, the e-tender dated 20.08.2025 was also required to be stayed till disposal of the writ petition.

¶194

15. Accordingly, MAT 1592 of 2025 is allowed in part , thereby modifying the impugned order to the extent that the respondentauthorities shall remain restrained by an order of injunction from giving any effect and/or further effect to the restraint order dated July 17, 2025 issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Murshidabad and the tender notice dated August 20, 2025 issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad in respect of Narkelbari Ferry Ghat till disposal of the writ petition, bearing WPA No. 21181 of 2025.

¶195

16. CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of consequentially.

¶196

17. It is, however, made clear that the above findings are tentative,

¶197

being restricted to the consideration of the interim reliefs sought before the writ court, and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the main writ petition.

¶198

33

¶199

18. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court.

¶200

19. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

¶201

I Agree,

¶202

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶203

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Beldanga -Ii Panchayat Samity and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beldanga -Ii Panchayat Samity and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariam Ahmed and Anr. (Sk. Nasiruddin Ahmed Since Deceased) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sanghamitra Saha (Chowdhury) Vs Nityananda Paul

Nilam Prasad Bhakat and Ors. Vs Kamala Prasad Bhakat and Ors.

Ruhi Agarwalla Alias Chandgothia Vs Santosh Agarwal

Ananda Kumar Ojha Vs the Chairman Coochbehar Municipality

Saregama India Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.