M/s. Howrah Forging Ltd. & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The petitioners seek a mandatory order on the respondents to remove an encroachment and/or barricade put at on a property belonging to the petitioners.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, the private respondent had ostensibly acted in terms of the order dated February 27, 2014 passed in W.P. 24288 (W) of 2012 (Swastik Refinery Private Limited vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). He draws the attention of the Court to the order. He submits that, such order does not allow the private respondent or the State authorities to demolish a boundary wall or to make any encroachment thereon. The State authorities had allowed the private respondent to demolish the boundary wall of the petitioners and to encroach on the land belonging to the petitioners. He submits that, the status obtaining in respect of the land so far as possession is concerned be restored so as to make it in consonance with the record of rights available with the State authorities. He submits that, the private respondents are not appearing despite repeated notices. He also draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the Court had called for a report from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Such report vindicates the stand taken by the petitioners. The report also shows that, the private respondents are guilty of encroachment into the land belonging to the petitioners.

The State is represented.

Learned Advocate for the State submits in reference to the report filed in Court that, on inspection it was found that, a boundary wall was broken and that, there have been encroachments to a property belonging to the petitioners.

Apparently, the State authorities were acting in terms of an order dated February 27, 2014 in W.P. 24228 (W) of 2012 (Swastik Refinery Private Limited vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The order is as follows:- "None appears for the respondents despite service. Affidavit of service filed in Court today shall be retained with the records.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a plot of land described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It intends to protect such property by encircling it with a boundary wall. It is alleged that the attempt to construct the boundary wall met stiff resistance from the private respondent for which the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Panchla, Howrah was approached with a representation dated September 27, 2012 of the petitioner''s learned advocate, seeking deployment of police guards in and around the plot in question. Grievance expressed in this writ petition is that the superintendent has not considered such representation.

Since none appears for the official respondents, their version is not available. It also appears that the attempt of the petitioner to serve the private respondent has failed inasmusch as the postal envelope has returned with the endorsement ''The firm is not verified''.

Be that as it may, having regard tot he nature of grievance expressed by the petitioner, I find no reason to keep the writ petition pending. The same stands disposed of with a direction upon the superintendent of police to consider and dispose of the said representation dated September 27, 2012 for deployment of police guards to protect its property as its cost, in terms of regulation 666 and 669 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of 15 days from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no ode as to costs.

Needless to observe, the merits of the matter have not been examined.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously."

The order dated February 27, 2014 directs the Superintendent of Police to consider and dispose of the representation dated September 27, 2012 for deployment of police guards to protect the property of the private respondent at the cost of the private respondent in terms of Regulations 666 and 669 of the Police Regulations of the Bengal upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It appears from the records made available to Court that, the Superintendent of Police did not give any notice to the petitioners prior to disposing of the representation dated September 27, 2012. Apparently, purporting to act in terms of the order dated February 27, 2014, the State authorities have extended support to the private respondents to demolish the wall of the petitioners and to allow the private respondents to encroach into portions of land belonging to the petitioners. That, there is encroachment on land belonging to the petitioner is established from the report filed in Court on behalf of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. As noted above, none appears for the private respondents to contest the claim of the petitioners, in spite of repeated notices.

In such circumstances, since the order dated February 27, 2014 did not direct any demolition to be undertaken or facilitate the encroachments by the private respondents on the property belonging to the petitioners, it would be appropriate to undo the wrongs committed by the respondents.

The State authorities including the police authorities will ensure that, the position of the plots of land involved are restored to the position so as to make the same in consonance with the records of rights available with the appropriate authorities. The report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer which is on record should be followed for the demarcation of the land concerned. Let the position as shown in the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer be restored. Let such exercise be completed within four weeks from date.

W.P. 12362 (W) of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.