Dismissed

Biswajit Dutta Choudhury v. the State of West Bengal

NGT2 Apr 2025Original Application No. 32/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT dismissed an Original Application alleging illegal construction on a water body in Jalpaiguri. The court held that reliefs were not maintainable due to concealment of a prior High Court order distinguishing the land conversion and dismissal of similar claims. The Tribunal noted its lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate land conversion validity under Section 14 of the NGT Act and imposed costs

What did the court decide?

Original Application dismissed; costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on applicant with copy placed before District Magistrate.

Biswajit Dutta Choudhury vs the State of West Bengal — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.02

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.32/2025/EZ (I.A. No.41/2025/EZ)

¶6

Biswajit Dutta Chowdhury Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of West Bengal & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 02.04.2025 Date of Uploading: 07.04.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Adv. a/w Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv.

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudip Kumar Dutta, Adv. for R-1,2,3,5,6,7&8, State Respondents (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-4, Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for State Respondents, Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv. (in Virtual Mode) a/w Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria, Adv. for R-12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant.

¶15

Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, learned Counsel who is present in Court, files Vakalatnama on behalf of the State Respondents; the same is taken on record.

¶16

(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).

¶17

..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶18

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶19

Original Application No.32/2025/EZ (I.A. No.41/2025/EZ) OM

April 02, 2025,

Page 1 of 22

Item No.02

Court No.1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶25

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶26

Original Application No.32/2025/EZ (I.A. No.41/2025/EZ)

¶27

IN THE MATTER OF

¶28

Biswajit Dutta Choudhury,

¶29

s/o Birendra Dutta Choudhury, aged about 58 years, R/o Pabitra Nagar Colony, Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101, and also the Secretary of Paribesh O Aamra, Jalpaiguri, Ukilpara, District-Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101

¶30

……….Applicant(s)

¶31

Versus

¶32

1. The State of West Bengal, Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Prani Sampad Bhawan, 5^th Floor, Block-LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700098;

¶33

2. Department of Environment, Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Prani Sampad Bhawan, 5^th Floor, Block-LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700098;

¶34

3. Department of Environment, Through the Chief Environment Officer, Prani Sampad Bhawan, 5^th Floor, Block-LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700106;

¶35

4. West Bengal Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, Paribesh Bhawan, Plot No.10A, Block No.LA, Sector-III, Bidhannangar, Kolkata-700106;

¶36

5. State Water Investigation Directorate, West Bengal, Through the Director, Nirman Bhawan, Top Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091;

¶37

Page 2 of 22

¶38

6. West Bengal Wetland Authority, Through the Member Secretary, Deparment of Environment, Government of West Bengal, 5^th Floor, Prani Sampad Bhawan, Block-LB-III, Salt Lake, Sector-II, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-700106;

¶39

7. The District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, P.O. & District- Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101;

¶40

8. The Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri,

¶41

P.O. & District- Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101;

¶42

9. The Chairman, Jalpaiguri Municipality, P.O. & District- Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101;

¶43

10. Regional Director,

¶44

Central Ground Water Board, Eastern Region Office, Bhujalika, C P Block-6, Sector-V, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal-700091;

¶45

11. Ashoke Jindal, resident of

¶46

Lichutola, Dinbazar, Jalpaiguri, Pin-735102;

¶47

12. M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer, Partner Mr. Sanjay Singhania, S/o Sankar Lal Singhania, Model Town, Haidar Para, P.O. & P.S.- Bhakti nagar, District- Jalpaiguri, West Bengal- 735101

¶48

………..Respondent(s)

¶49

Date of hearing: 02.04.2025 Date of Uploading: 07.04.2025

¶50

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶51

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Adv. a/w Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv.

Page 3 of 22

ORDER

Heard Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel present for the Applicant.

¶56

The Applicant has filed the present Original Application alleging that the Respondent Nos.11 and 12, Ashoke Jindal and M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer Partner, Mr. Sanjay Singhania, Private Respondents have illegally constructed boundary wall on approximately 8.00 acres of land including 2.32 acres of vested land appertaining plot no. 256, 270 & 274 plus and RS 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736, 737, RS Sheet no. 13 of Mouza- Kharia and sluice gate which has been blocked by the respondents.

¶57

It is alleged that the Respondent Nos.11 and 12 have planned to construct a residential complex on a water body (being part of river Karala) which is situated at the back of Viswa Bangla, Krirangan, Jalpaiguri; the entire area in question covers more than 8.00 acres of land and contains atleast 1000 cusecs water every day during the rainy season.

¶58

It is also alleged that the Respondent Nos.11 and 12 have illegally and arbitrarily purchased about 8.00 acres of land in MouzaKharia Sheet No. 81 (L.R.) which is a water body being part of river Karala and a boat service was available upto 2008. But in 2009, Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority constructed pucca road and a concrete bridge on that area for better communication purpose.

¶59

It is alleged that no permission has been granted by the Irrigation Department, Jalpaiguri for making the constructions in question.

¶60

Page 4 of 22

¶61

The Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶62

“a. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to forthwith to stop the illegal construction of boundary wall in MouzaKharia Sheet No.81 (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 and sluice gate which was blocked by the private respondent Nos.11 and 13;

¶63

b. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to stop the illegal construction of boundary wall in Mouza-Kharia Sheet No.81 (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 and sluice gate which was blocked by the private respondent Nos.11 and 13;

¶64

c. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to refrain from the construction of boundary wall by the private respondent;

¶65

d. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to restore the property to its original position;

¶66

e. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to undertake all necessary measures to see that there is no construction of any illegal construction of boundary wall in Mouza-Kharia Sheet No.81 (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres being vested land and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 and sluice gate which was blocked by the private respondent Nos.11 and 12.

¶67

f. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to comply and/or act in accordance with the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act and other pollution laws.

¶68

Page 5 of 22

¶69

g. To direct the concerned respondent authorities to take steps and/or initiate legal proceedings in accordance with law against the polluters to protect the environment.

¶70

h. To pass such other order or orders, direction or directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to protect and preserve the environment and for the ends of justice.”

¶71

We find that the specific allegation of the Applicant is that residential complex is being constructed on the land in question which covers 8.00 acres and which contains about 1000 cusecs of water everyday during the rainy season and is a waterbody.

¶72

Documents have been filed with the Original Application which are representations filed by the Applicant-Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri. The representation dated 17.01.2025 at page no.41 of the paper book, mentions that “though the classification is dahala which is agricultural land being a part of River Karala shows that the same is the agricultural land and has never been recorded in the land records as the waterbody”. The land records which have been filed at page no.38 which is the English translation of the Bangla record also mentions the nature of the land as the dahola and at page no.43 as dahala. Be that as it may, the Applicant’s own contention is that it is agricultural land and, therefore, in our opinion merely because during the rainy season water collects over the land the same cannot be said to be a waterbody. The contention of the Applicant is that the construction in question is being made on a part of this land. Even so there is nothing on record to show that the land has ever been recorded in the revenue records as a waterbody.

¶73

The Applicant has also filed the letter of the North-East, Irrigation

¶74

& Waterways Directorate dated 07.08.2024 which is addressed to

¶75

Page 6 of 22

¶76

the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri (page no.46 of the Original Application) which mentions that a concrete fencing is being constructed by a group of builders adjacent to River Karala which is causing blockage to the sluice gate situated on the right bank of River Karala in the back side of Viswa Bangla Krirangan, Jalpaiguri and this type of blockage may cause waterlogging in that region and affect to the stability of the river bank. It is stated that the embankment at the said location has been constructed by the North Bengal Development Department and the Jalpaiguri Municipality has been directed by the Superintending Engineer, North East Irrigation Circle-II, Irrigation & Waterways Directorate to look into the matter. This letter also does not mention that the land in question is a waterbody.

¶77

The District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri, has filed affidavit dated 02.04.2025. Along with this affidavit, a Joint Committee Inspection Report of an inspection of the site carried out on 11.03.2025 has been filed and photographs have also been filed. The Inspection Report reads as under:-

¶78

“Report of the joint committee constituted by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal (Eastern Zone Bench) in terms of Order dated 20.02.2025 passed in connection with Original Application No.32/2025/EZ regarding illegal boundary wall construction for residential complex on a water body (part of river Karala) at Kharia, Jalpaiguri

¶79

By the Order dated 20.02.2025 passed in connection with Original Application No.32/2025/EZ, the Hon’ble NGT (Eastern Zone Bench) constituted a joint committee comprising District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and WBPCB. Hon’ble NGT directed the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to be the nodal body. As per direction of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri other Depts. of District Level were

¶80

Page 7 of 22

¶81

included. In the joint committee, the following officials represent their respective organizations:

¶82

*Sl. #*	*Name of Organization*	*Name & Designation of* *the Committee members*
1.	District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri	Smt. Priyadarshini Bhattacharya, IAS, ADM (LR & LA) Jalpaiguri and Nodal Officer of Constituted Jt. Committee
2.	Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri	Mr. D. Dutta, Executive Engineer, Jalpaiguri _Irrigation Division _
3.	Fishery Dept., Jalpaiguri	Asst. Director of Fisheries, Jalpaiguri
4.	BLLRO, Jalpaiguri Sadar	Sri Raju Tamang, BLLRO, _Jalpaiguri Sadar _
5.	WBPCB	Dr. Prasun Kumar Mondal, Asst. Environmental Engineer & In-Charge, Siliguri RO

¶83

The members of the joint committee carried out inspection to the construction site of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer, Plot no.256, 270 & 274 plus and RS 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736, 737, Mouza — Kharia, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal on 11.03.2025 at 12.30 pm for joint inspection.

¶84

Observation:

¶85

That the River Karala flows along the back side of Viswa Bangla ICirangan, Jalpaiguri. The opposite bank of this river has been reinforced with concrete to create a walking path for visitors, along with seating facilities. According to BLLRO, Jalpaiguri Sadar, (i) M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer has constructed a boundary wall on LR Plot no.235, 236, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271, 272 (corresponding RS is 91 & 92), covering a total area of 3.7847 acres, recorded in Kh. 269. This land is recorded in favour of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer, (ii) The total area LR Plot no.256, 270, 274 (corresponding RS 94 & 115) is 4.0336 acres. Out of which LR Plot no.256, 270 is recorded in Kh. 1 and LR Plot no. 274 is partly recorded in Kh. 1 and partly recorded in favour of

¶86

Page 8 of 22

¶87

different raiyats. These three plots are located outside the boundary of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer, (iii) Other RS plots mentioned in OA 32/2025/EZ dt. 20.02.25 i.e. 93, 105, 734, 735, 736, 737 are recorded partly in favour of Kh. No. 01 and in favour of different raiyats. These Plots are also situated outside M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer’s boundary.

¶88

According to Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division, few hume pipes are located within the constructed embankment, but they have been blocked due to the construction of the boundary wall, potentially causing drainage congestion during the rainy season. However, they ascertained that the land does not belong to Irrigation & Waterways Dept. Stone dust/sand were found piled up.

¶89

Adjacent to these plots, there are Plot nos. 256, 270, 274 (area of about 4.22 acre), observed to be low-lying area with some stagnant water completely filled with water hyacinth, weeds & dense vegetation outside the boundary wall. Some single storied residential building have been constructed on a part of Plot no. 256. This low-lying area is connected to the Karala river through culvert and sluice gate, creating a possibility of water flow between the river and these plots.

¶90

According to the Fisheries Department, as noted in Letter No. 176 dated 12^th March 2025 from the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Jalpaiguri, the visited area, situated behind Vishwa Bangla Krirangon near the bank of the Karala River, may have once been part of the river’s catchment. However, at present, it lies between the boundary wall constructed by the developer on the east and the Municipality/PWD road on the south and west. While parts of the land remain low-lying and waterlogged, other sections are dry. Some portions are covered with water hyacinth, while others have been filled with household waste and debris. The

¶91

Page 9 of 22

¶92

current state of the land does not indicate active pisciculture use.”

¶93

A perusal of this Inspection Report would show that the Committee carried out the inspection at the construction site of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer on Plot Nos.256, 270 & 274 plus and R.S. No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737, Mouza-Kharia, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The Inspection Committee has recorded a

¶94

Page 10 of 22

¶95

finding that the River Karala flows along the back side of Viswa Bangla Karangan, Jalpaiguri and the opposite bank of the river has been reinforced with concrete to create a walking path for visitors, along with seating facilitates; according to the BL&LRO, Jalpaiguri Sadar M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer has constructed a boundary wall on L.R. Plot No.235, 236, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271 and 272 (corresponding R.S. 91 & 92), covering a total area of 3.7847 acres, recorded in Kh.269; the total area L.R. Plot No.256, 270, 274 (corresponding R.S. 94 & 115) is 4.0336 acres, out of which L.R. Plot No.256 and 270 is recorded in Kh.1 and L.R. Plot No.274 is partly recorded in Kh.1 and partly recorded in favour of different raiyats; these three plots are located outside the boundary of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer; the other R.S. plots mentioned in the present Original Application i.e. R.S. No.93, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 are recorded partly in favour of Kh. No.01 in favour of different raiyats. These plots are also stated to be situated outside the boundary of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer.

¶96

The Inspection Committee has also noticed that according to the Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division, few hume pipes are located within the constructed embankment but they have been blocked due to the construction of the boundary wall, potentially causing drainage congestion during the rainy season but it has been ascertained that the land does not belong to the Irrigation & Waterways Department but stone dust/sand were found piled up; adjacent to these plots are the Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 (area about 4.22 acres) which are observed to be low-lying area with some stagnant water completely filled with water hyacinth, weeds and dense vegetation outside the boundary wall; some single storied residential building have been

¶97

Page 11 of 22

¶98

constructed on a part of Plot No.256 and this low-lying area is connected to the Karala River through culvert and sluice gate, creating the possibility of water flow between the river and these plots.

¶99

The Joint Committee also noted that according to the Fisheries Department vide their letter dated 12.03.2025 the area in question near the bank of the Karala River may have once upon a time been part of the river’s catchment but at present it lies between the boundary wall constructed by the developer on the east and the Municipality/PWD road on the south and west, while parts of the land remain low-lying and are waterlogged, the other sections are dry but the current state of the land does not indicate active pisciculture use.

¶100

Along with the affidavit, details of the land record of the plots mentioned in the Original Application has been filed dated 21.03.2025 as Annexure-3 to the Original Application which is as

¶101

under:-

¶102

“Memo no.257/BLLRO/SADAR/JAL/2025 Dated: 21/03/2025

¶103

To,

¶104

Additional District Magistrate And District Land & Land Reforms Officer Jalpaiguri

¶105

Sub: Detailed report in connection of OA No.32/2025/EZ of 2025 in the matter of Biswajit Dutta Chowhudyr Vs. The State of West Bengal & others.

¶106

Ref: Order, dated: 20.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata.

¶107

Madam,

¶108

In reference to the above, a joint inspection has been done on 11.03.2025 in presence of ADM (L.R.), Jalpaiguri and authorized representatives of Municipality, West Bengal Pollution Control Board, Irrigation, Fisheries, Environment & Land department. The following plots of land mentioned in OA No.32/2025/EZ of 2025 i.e. 256, 270, 274 (LR), 90, 91,

¶109

Page 12 of 22

¶110

92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736, 737 (RS) of Mouza Kharia (RS Sheet No.13, LR Sheet No.81, 85) has been inspected.

¶111

Plot wise details of the land mentioned in OA No.32/2025/EZ of 2025:

¶112

*RS Plot No.*	*LR Plot No.*	*Classification as* *per RS/Khasra*	*Classification* *as per LR e-* *bhuchitra*	*Remarks*
94	256	Dahala	Dahala	Recorded Kh.1 & Land	in Patta
94	270	Dahala	Dahala	Recorded _Kh.1 _	in
115	274	Patit	Patit	Partly recorded Khatian & p recorded different raiyats.	in No.1 artly in
90	278	Dahala	Dahala	Recorded favour different raiyats.	in of
91	198 to 230, 233 to 243, 257 to 261, 263, 264, 271,	Dahala	Dahala, Bastu Patit, Path, Danga	LR no.235, 259, 261,	plot 236, 260, 262,
	272, 273,			263, 271,	272
	241/289			with	area
92	220, 221, 222, 227 to 233, 237, 261, 262, 263, 271, 272, 273, 277	Dahala	Dahala, Bastu, Danga	3.7847 is f recorded Kh.269 possesse butted boundary by Kamakha Developer	acres ound in & d by wall Maa ya s.
93	133, 273, 276	Rasta	Dahala, Danga	Recorded favour different raiyats	in of
105	69, 70, 87	Bastu	Bastu	Recorded favour Jalpaiguri Municipal	in of ity.
734	79, 80 (LR sheet no.85)	Bill	Path, Nadi	Recorded Kh.1	in
735	276, 277	Dahala	Dahala, Path	Recorded favour different raiyats.	in of
736	276, 277	Dahala	Dahala, Path	Recorded favour different raiyats.	in of
737	276, 277	Dahala	Dahala, Path	Recorded favour different raiyats.	in of

¶113

Details as transpired from RI’s field enquiry report:

¶114

Maa Kamakhya developer has constructed boundary wall on LR plot no.235, 236, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,

¶115

271, 272 (corresponding RS is 91 & 92) with total area Page 13 of 22

¶116

3.7847 acres is found recorded in Kh.269 in favour of Maa Kamakhya Developers.

¶117

The total area LR plot no.256, 270, 274 (corresponding RS is 94 & 115) is 4.0336 acres, out of which LR plot no.256, 270 is recorded in Kh.1 and LR plot no.274 is partly recorded in Kh.1 and partly recorded in favour different raiyats. These 3 plots are found outside the bounded land of Maa Kamakhya Developers.

¶118

Other RS plots mentioned in OA No.32/2025/EZ of 2025 i.e.93, 105, 734, 735, 736, 737 is recorded partly in favour of Kh.01 and in favour of different raiyats. These plots are also found outside the bounded land of Maa Kamakhya Developers.

¶119

This is for her kind perusal.

¶120

Yours Faithfully

¶121

Assistant Director Block Land & Land Reforms Officer Sadar, Jalpaiguri Memo no.257(1)/BLLRO/SADAR/JAL/2025 Copy for information to the Senior Law Officer, DM Office, Jalpaiguri”

¶122

A perusal of the land record would show that the plots in question

¶123

are either Patit or Rasta or Bastu or Dahala; only Plot No.734 corresponding to L.R. Plot No.79, 80 (LR Sheet No.85) is recorded as Bill which is also recorded as ‘Path, Nadi’ recorded in Kh.1 but the same report also mentions that the R.S. Plot No.93, 105, 734, 735, 737 in Kh.1 is recorded in favour of different raiyats and these plots are outside the boundary land of M/s Maa Kamakkhya Developers.

¶124

I.A. No.41/2025/EZ:-

¶125

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Respondent No.12 raising a preliminary objection that the present Original Application is not maintainable as the Applicant had filed the Original Application with suppression of material facts. In the I.A.,

¶126

Page 14 of 22

¶127

it is stated that the Applicant-Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri had filed W.P.A (P) No.426 of 2024, Jyoti Prosad Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., on 25.09.2024 before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶128

“a) A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent and/or each of them specifically the respondent no.10, 11 and 12 for taking positive step for to investigate into the matter and prayer for dismantling the illegal construction of boundary wall in Mouza-Kharia Sheet No.81, (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 and sluice gate which was blocked by the private respondent Nos.13 and 14;

¶129

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent and/or each of them specifically the respondent no.10, 11 and 12 to consider the representation dated 18.07.2024 and 19.07.2024 made by the petitioner for positive step to investigate into the matter and prayer for dismantling the illegal construction of boundary wall in Mouza-Kharia Sheet No.81 (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737 and sluice gate which was blocked by the private respondent Nos.13 and 14 and to cancel the illegal deeds and approval of construction work by the private respondents and save for the welfare of the common people of Jalpaiguri District at large;

¶130

c) A writ in the nature of certiorari be issued directing the respondent authority to transmit the records of the case and to certify the same so that conscionable justice may be done to the nation;

¶131

d) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s);

¶132

e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above;

¶133

Page 15 of 22

¶134

f) Ad interim order do issue directing the respondent no.13 and 14 and their associates to stop the illegal construction of work of the water bodies under Mouza-Kharia Sheet No.81 (L.R.), L.R. Plot Nos.256, 270, 274 in area of 2.32 acres being vested land and Mouza-Kharia, Sheet No.13, R.S. Plots No.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 734, 735, 736 and 737;

¶135

g) Make the Rule absolute;

¶136

h) Costs of and incidental to this application;

¶137

i) Such other or further order(s) and/or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶138

It is stated that the said petition was filed in the name of the President of the Paribesh O Aamra, Mr. Jyoti Prosad Roy. It is also stated that conversion of the land was approved under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in favour of the Respondent No.12 and necessary Conversion Certificates under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 have been issued to the Respondent No.12 permitting him to make construction in the said land premises and after scrutiny by the Municipal Authorities, a valid building permit has also been issued on 03.01.2025. It is further stated that on 02.01.2025 an order has been passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the said W.P.A. (P)/426/2024 and the writ petition has been dismissed. The order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta dated 02.01.2025 reads as under:-

¶139

“1. The petitioner alleges that a land has been illegally used for the purpose of other than being maintained as a water body.

¶140

2. The learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submitted that an order has been passed by the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal

¶141

Page 16 of 22

¶142

Land Reforms Act, 1955 dated 13^th January, 2023 by which conversion has been approved.

¶143

3. As long as the order of conversion remains, the question of issuing a direction as sought for in the writ petition does not arise.

¶144

4. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.”

¶145

It is stated that the present Original Application was filed by the Applicant sometime in February, 2025 and the fact of dismissal of W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 was already in the knowledge of the Applicant, Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri but has been deliberately concealed from this Tribunal fraudulently in order to obtain the relief which was not granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.

¶146

Mr. Ishaan Saha assisted by Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.12 submitted that the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 was filed in the name of the Jyoti Prosad Roy as President of the Paribesh O Aamra. He has referred to the copy of the writ petition which has been filed at page no.96 ‘colly’ and shows the petitioner as Jyoti Prosad Roy, President of Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri, Ukilpara, District-Jalpaiguri. The present Original Application has been filed by Biswajit Dutta Choudhury who is stated to be the Secretary of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri.

¶147

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty assisted by Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Original Application No.32/2025/EZ and the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 cannot be said to be by the same petitioner as the petitioner in the Original Application is Mr. Biswajit Dutta Choudhury whereas the petitioner in the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 is Mr. Jyoti Prosad Roy. The

¶148

Page 17 of 22

¶149

contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is totally misconceived since we are of the affirm view that the petitioner/Applicant in the Original Application as well as in the W.P.A.(P) is Paribesh O Aamra except that the Original Application No.32/2025/EZ has been filed by the Secretary of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri whereas the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 has been filed by the President of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri. It is also borne out from perusal of the Original Application that the filing of the W.P.A. in the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and the dismissal of the said writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.01.2025 has not been disclosed by the Applicant of the Original Application in the Original Application No.32/2025/EZ which has been received in the office of the Tribunal on 18.02.2025 and, therefore, on that date the filing of the W.P.A. and the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.01.2025 was well within the knowledge of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri. In all fairness, the fact of filing of the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 and its dismissal by the Hon’ble High Court by order dated 02.01.2025 ought to have been disclosed by the Applicant while filing the present Original Application No.32/2025/EZ. Mr. Biswajit Dutta Choudhury was the Secretary of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri and it would have been well within his knowledge that the W.P.A. had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.

¶150

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, learned Counsel then sought to submit that the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court since an order had been passed by the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 dated 13^th

¶151

Page 18 of 22

¶152

January, 2023 by which conversion of land character had been approved.

¶153

Learned Counsel submitted that the conversion of the land by the BL&LRO in favour of the Respondent No.12 was wholly illegal and, therefore, this Tribunal can still look into the matter of alleged illegal construction by the Respondent No.12 over the land in question. In our opinion, whether the conversion of the land under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by an order dated 13.01.2023 was legal or illegal was a question which only could have been decided by the State Respondents in appropriate proceedings and it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as an environmental Court having limited jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to examine the validity of the said conversion in the present Original Application proceedings. Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 reads as under:-

¶154

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes. – (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

¶155

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in subsection (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

¶156

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:

¶157

Page 19 of 22

¶158

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

¶159

Reference may also be made to the extremely relevant observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Para-3 of the order dated 02.01.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has observed that ‘ As long as the order of conversion remains, the question of issuing a direction as sought for in the writ petition does not arise’. The relief claimed in the writ petition under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court has already been extracted hereinabove which is similar to the relief claimed in the present Original Application and, therefore, also it is not open for this Tribunal to examine the validity of the order of conversion dated 13.01.2023 passed by Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the present Original Application proceedings.

¶160

Further, there is one aspect of the matter namely that the R.S. Plot No.734, L.R. Plot No.79, 80 (L.R. Sheet No.85) has been shown in the land records as ‘Bill’ and its classification has been mentioned as ‘Path, Nadi’. This is clear from the copy of the land records dated 21.03.2025 filed as Annexure-R-3 to the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri. This letter also mentions that the plot nos. mentioned in the present Original Application No.32/2025/EZ which includes the Plot No.734 is recorded in Kh.01 and is in favour of different raiyats and are outside the bounded land of M/s Maa Kamakkha Developers, Respondent No.12 and, therefore, also no relief can be granted to the Applicant as prayed as against the Respondent No.12.

¶161

Page 20 of 22

¶162

For reasons stated hereinabove and for concealment and suppression of material facts while filing the present Original Application, we dismiss the present Original Application.

¶163

The law with regard to the question of concealment and suppression of material facts with intention to mislead the Court has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following

¶164

cases:-

¶165

(i) (2003) 8 SCC 319, Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others;

¶166

(ii) (2006) 11 SCC 42, V.C., Banaras Hindu University and Others Vs. Shrikant;

¶167

(iii) (2007) 7 SCC 434, Tanna & Modi Vs. CIT, Mumbai XXV and Others;

¶168

(iv) (2007) 8 SCC 449, Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India;

¶169

(v) (2008) 12 SCC 481, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others;

¶170

(vi) (2009) 13 SCC 569, Rani Aloka Dudhoria and Others Vs. Goutam Dudhoria and Others;

¶171

(vii)(2009) 13 SCC 600, State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar.

¶172

Therefore, considering that the Original Application has been filed on concealment and suppression of materials facts relating to the filing of the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024, Jyoti Prosad Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. , before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in which an order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.01.2025 dismissing the said W.P.A. particularly containing the observations made in Para-3 of the said order which has been extracted hereinabove, we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

¶173

Page 21 of 22

¶174

Twenty-Five Thousand only) against the Applicant, Biswajit Dutta Choudhury, Secretary of Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri. The cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited by the said Biswajit Dutta Choudhury with the Registrar of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, within one week failing which the same shall be recovered from him by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri in accordance with law and deposited with the Registrar of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata within one month thereafter.

¶175

A copy of this order shall also be placed before the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri for necessary action and compliance. The District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri shall also file affidavit of compliance by 30.05.2025 .

¶176

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶177

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶178

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶179

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶180

April 02, 2025, Original Application No.32/2025/EZ (I.A. No.41/2025/EZ) MN

¶181

Page 22 of 22

Biswajit Dutta Choudhury v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Dutta Choudhury v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Singh Bhadauria S/O Sobran Singh Bhadauria vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Collector

Nirmal Kumar Tripathi vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Radhey Shyam & Ors. vs

Ridhima Pandey vs

M. Venkata Reddy vs State of Telangana

Anita & Another vs State of Chattisgarh

News Item Published in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 13.08.2024 Titled Deadly Chemicals Found in Ground Water of 53 Areas of Sanwer Road and Suspected on 400 Industries Notice to 50 and Action Taken Only on 7 Industries vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Madanmohan Rout S/O Late Laxmidhar Rout vs Sri Nilakanteswar Dev and Other Deities Represented through Trustee

Dr Srikanta Samanta vs State of West Bengal

Tribunal on Its Own Motion in Re Illegal Water Land Fill Up at Bmc Ward No 2 Narayanpur Rajarhat vs the State of West Bengal

Subhash Datta vs State of West Bengal

Smt Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Pintu Dutta vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Madanmohan Rout S/O Late Laxmidhar Rout vs Sri Nilakanteswar Dev and Other Deities Represented through Trustee