Disposed

S S Kumar vs

NGT10 Jul 2024IA No. 41/2024 in Original Application No. 119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench, in an interlocutory order, directed the impleadment of the Calcutta Entertain Club Foundation. The Tribunal declined to pass an order on an interim application seeking restraint on land alteration, reasoning that an interim order maintaining status quo had already been passed by the High Court in a connected petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed to implead Calcutta Entertainment Club Foundation; declined to pass order on interim application against Respondents.

S S Kumar vs — Land Acquisition | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.03

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.119/2024/EZ (I.A. No. 41/2024/EZ)

¶6

Srinivasan Sampath Kumar

¶7

Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

Date of hearing: 10.07.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Srinivasan Sampath Kumar, in person

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Sr. Advocate a/w Ms. Paushli Banerjee, Adv for R-1, Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Adv. for R-2, Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, Adv for R.3

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr. Srinivasan Sampath Kumar, the Applicant, is present in person.

¶16

Affidavit dated 09.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA); the same is taken on record.

¶17

Mr. Sibojyoti Chakraborty, learned Counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.3, State Respondent, Government of West Bengal; the same is taken on record.

¶18

We find that the Calcutta Entertain Club Foundation is a necessary party to the present proceedings, since it is alleged that the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority has allotted 5 bighas of land of Rabindra Sarobar Lake in favour of the Calcutta Entertainment Club Foundation.

¶19

¶20

We accordingly direct the Applicant to implead the Calcutta Entertainment Club Foundation through its Director, in the array of Respondents as Respondent No.4, in the course of the day.

¶21

Issue notice to the newly added Respondent No.4, returnable within four weeks. The said Respondent may file its counter-affidavit within four weeks.

¶22

Mr. Srinivasan Sampath Kumar, the Applicant, prays for and is granted a week’s time for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶23

List on 28.08.2024.

¶24

(I.A. No.41/2024/EZ) :-

¶25

This I.A. has been filed by the Applicant, seeking injunction restraining the Respondents from causing any interference, disturbance and alteration in and around the Rabindra Sarobar Lake area during the pendency of the present Original Application.

¶26

We are informed by Ms. Paushali Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, KMDA, that a W.P.A. (P) No.274 of 2024 ( Sabuj Mancha represented by its Secretary Naba Kumar Dutta & Anr. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Development Authority & Ors. ), has been filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta with regard to the same issue relating to allotment of land by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority in favour of the Calcutta Entertainment Club Foundation within the Rabindra Sarobar Lake and an interim order on 04.07.2024 has also been passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. Para 8 of the order reads as under:-

¶27

“W.P.A. (P) 274 of 2024 Sabuj Mancha represented by its Secretary Naba Kumar Dutta & Anr.

¶28

¶29

Versus The Kolkata Municipal Development Authority & Ors.

¶30

……………….xxx…….………xxx………………….…..xxx………………

¶31

8. In the meantime, physical features of the property shall not be altered. Characteristics of the land in question shall not be altered and status quo prevailing as on today (4^th July, 2024) shall be maintained.”

¶32

In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to pass any order on the I.A. No.41/2024/EZ and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Counsel are, however, directed to file copy of the said Writ Petition.

¶34

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶35

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶36

July 10, 2024, Original Application No.119/2024/EZ (I.A. No. 41/2024/EZ) AK

¶37

S S Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S S Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejasvi Chandra vs Madhu Kamboj

Roshan Joshi vs State of Uttrakhand

Tejasvi Chandra vs Madhu Kamboj

Tejasvi Chandra vs Madhu Kamboj

Yadram vs State of Rajasthan

Yadram vs State of Rajasthan

Soban Singh Rana vs Roshan Lal Uniyal

Domingos Castro vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Kartik Majumder vs Department of Environment

Rajat Chowdhury vs the State of West Bengal

Subhash Datta vs State of West Bengal

News Item Titled Six Workers Killed in Fire Inside Nagaland Rat Hole Coal Mine Appearing in the Hindu Bureau Date 27 01 2024 vs Nagaland Pollution Control Board

Piyabrata Uttam Nayak So M Nayak Aged 40 Years vs State of Odisha Represented through Addl Chief Secretary of Department of Forest Enviornment and Climate Change

M/S Sai Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Pollution Control Board