Jayanta Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶1

22.07.2026 Item No.9 Ct. No. 19 PG

¶2

W.P.A. 20494 of 2024 With

¶3

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 Jayanta Paul Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Prasayan Mukherjee Ms. Ramsha Shamim…..For the Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar …..For the State

¶6

The writ petitioner and the respondent/State are represented by their respective learned counsel.

¶7

The subject-matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 21.06.2024, as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority, whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 3 authority while passing the said reasoned order dated 21.06.2024, came to a factual finding that the representation of the writ petitioner dated 02.05.2023 is devoid of any merit since it has been noticed by the said authority that while constructing a bridge over river Damodar, no part of the writ petitioner’s raiyati land has been utilised and on the contrary, the construction of the bridge was located on L.R. Plot No. 1209 and L.R. Plot No.

¶8

2

¶9

1247, which are Government lands and recorded in Khatian No.-1.

¶10

In course of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strongly criticises the impugned reasoned order dated 21.06.2024 by saying that while passing the said impugned reasoned order, the respondent no. 3 authority made no endeavour to ensure the presence of the writ petitioner while conducting the process of demarcation by the jurisdictional BL&LRO.

¶11

It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that since principle of natural justice has not been followed while conducting the demarcation process by the jurisdictional BL&LRO, the respondent no. 3 authority ought not to have passed the reasoned order dated 21.06.2024 ignoring the contention of the writ petitioner.

¶12

It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that from page nos. 44 and 45 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that under cover of memo dated 11.01.2012, the jurisdictional BL&LRO clearly indicated that the construction of the bridge over river Damodar could not be possible unless a portion of

¶13

3

¶14

rayati land being L.R. Plot No. 1208 in MouzaBhabanipur is utilised.

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that since the writ petitioner is the co-owner of the aforementioned L.R. Plot No. 1208 and no demarcation of his possession has been done as yet, the respondent no. 3 authority ought not to have passed the reasoned order dated 21.06.2024 and on this score alone, the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 may be set aside and appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers of the instant writ petition.

¶16

In his next limb of submission, Mr. Chatterjee took me to the order dated 25.09.2024, as passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby and whereunder the said coordinate Bench, considering the factual aspect, directed for joint inspection of the property in question, wherein the writ petitioner was permitted to remain present.

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that soon thereafter, a report dated 28.11.2024 was filed by the jurisdictional BL&LRO.

¶18

It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that from the report dated 28.11.2024, it would reveal that the said report dated 28.11.2024 is

¶19

4

¶20

a mechanical reproduction of the earlier report dated 14.06.2024 upon which the respondent no. 3 authority places his reliance while passing the order impugned dated 21.06.2024.

¶21

Mr. Chatterjee submits before this Court that on a comparative study of the report of the jurisdictional BL&LRO, as available at page nos. 44 and 45 of the instant writ petition vis-à-vis the report dated 28.11.2024, it would reveal that both the reports are selfcontradictory, though, both the said two reports have been filed by the self-same authority.

¶22

It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that on account of such glaring discrepancy, which is apparent on the face of the record, the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority cannot stand in judicial scrutiny and thus, the present writ petitioner is entitled to the relief/reliefs, as prayed for in the instant writ petition.

¶23

Ms. Dhar Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, though contended that on account of her subsequent appointment in connection with

¶24

5

¶25

the instant case she is not in possession of the report dated 28.11.2024, however, it is contended by her that in absence of any factual discrepancy in the joint demarcation report as well as in the previous report dated 14.06.2024 upon which the respondent no. 3 relied while passing the reasoned order, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the order impugned in judicial review.

¶26

This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials, as placed before this Court. This Court has given due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the contending parties.

¶27

On careful perusal of the impugned order dated 21.06.2024, it appears to this Court that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order, took care of the demarcation report dated 14.06.2024, as submitted by the jurisdictional BL&LRO and came to a logical conclusion that at the time of construction of the bridge, no part of the rayati land of the writ petitioner has been utilised and on the contrary, the construction of the bridge took place over L.R. Plot No. 1209 and L.R. Plot No. 1247, which are admittedly, Government land.

¶28

6

¶29

This Court has also gone through the latest report dated 28.11.2024, as submitted by the jurisdictional BL&LRO pursuant to a joint demarcation process, wherein the writ petitioner duly participated pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2024, as passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶30

This Court has also meticulously gone through the report dated 28.11.2024, as submitted by the jurisdictional BL&LRO. It appears to this Court that the said report also contains a sketch map and the recording of the presence of the persons before whom the process of demarcation took place.

¶31

On conjoint perusal of the report dated 28.11.2024 and the reasoned order, which is impugned before this Court, it appears that the report dated 28.11.2024 and the earlier report dated 14.06.2024 upon which the impugned order is placed, are identical wherein the jurisdictional BL&LRO categorically indicated that no part of the writ petitioner’s rayati land has been utilised for the purpose of construction of the bridge and it has been specifically indicated in both the reports dated 28.11.2024 and 14.06.2024, as observed by the respondent no. 3 authority

¶32

7

¶33

that L.R. Plot No. 1209 and L.R. Plot No. 1247 have been used for the purpose of construction of the bridge.

¶34

Admittedly, Mr. Chatterjee in course of his argument places strong reliance upon the earlier report dated 11.01.2012 of the selfsame jurisdictional BL&LRO. Mr. Chatterjee submits before this Court that in the previous report dated 11.01.2012, there is a clear indication that the construction of the bridge is not possible without utilising the writ petitioner’s rayati land being L.R. Plot No. 1208.

¶35

It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the earlier report dated 11.01.2012 may also be considered while disposing the instant writ petition. This Court has meticulously gone through the earlier report dated 11.01.2012. It appears from the said report dated 11.01.2012 that the said report was prepared prior to construction of the bridge. However, the subsequent reports dated 14.06.2024 and 28.11.2024 clearly indicate that after construction of the bridge, no part of the rayati land of the writ petitioner has been utilised.

¶36

8

¶37

Such being the position, this Court is of the considered view that the earlier report dated 11.01.2012 of the jurisdictional BL&LRO lost its significance since the same was prepared prior to construction of the bridge.

¶38

This Court is well aware that sitting in a writ jurisdiction, this Court is not supposed to act as an appellate Court and therefore, cannot re-appreciate evidence on its own simply because another view is possible unless it has been shown that the decision making process of the authority is based on some materials, which are not on record and/or on some relevant materials on record, which are not being taken into account.

¶39

In considered view of this Court, no such irregularity and/or illegality can be shown on behalf of the writ petitioner in the reasoned order under challenge.

¶40