The Calcutta High Court has recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the illegal and unsustainable orders allowing private respondents to convert a water body and raise a construction thereon.
The PIL has been filed by one Gour Mohan Sadhukhan.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated March 19, 2021 was passed by the Collector concerned under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 permitting change of character/use of land.
He has raised a grievance that though the petitioner had filed representation earlier in point of time raising an objection yet as required by sub-section (2) of Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, no opportunity of hearing has been given. He has further raised an issue that by the order dated January 8, 2021, the private respondents has been permitted to raise compensatory water body in the area which is not in the locality, whereas in terms of Proviso of Section 17A(9) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 the compensatory water body is to be in the same locality, which has not been done.
The counsel for the State has pointed out that against both the orders, the petitioner has the remedy of filing the appeal. The counsel appearing for the private respondents has supported the orders questioned by the petitioner.
Having regard to the nature of petitioner’s allegations and the grounds raised for challenging the orders above, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was of the opinion that it would be more appropriate that the issues raised by the petitioner are examined by the appellate authority instead of the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under the PIL.
As against the order passed under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act and the limitation commences from the date of communication of the order. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders were not communicated to the petitioner initially. That apart there is also a provision for extending the limitation by the competent authority. So far as the order under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is concerned, the said order is also appellable under Section 54 of the Act , observed the Bench.
Hence, the Court permitted the petitioner to file appeal against the above order and to raise the grievance before the appellate authority, who on the basis of the original record will examine the grievance on merit after hearing all parties concerned.
Having regard to the nature of controversy, which has been raised by the petitioner, and also considering the fact that instead of entertaining the writ petition, we are relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, the Bench is of the view that the petitioner should not be left remedyless only on the ground of the expiry of limitation in the meanwhile.
Hence, the Court directed that if the petitioner avails the remedy of appeal within a period of three weeks, then the appeal so preferred by the petitioner will be examined on merit without raising objection about limitation. Appeal so preferred by the petitioner, will be considered and decided by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible, the Bench further directed.