Sites Das & Others vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petition is moved on service. Learned advocates appear on behalf of the State of West Bengal as also the respondent no.9. A report has

been filed in terms of the earlier order passed by the coordinate Bench on August 23, 2017. From the said report it appears that the statements

contained in the writ petition are substantially correct. The said report has been filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

State. The report has been affirmed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, who is the 6th respondent herein. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Annexure

‘R’ to the said report are set out hereinbelow:

“(9) That the undersigned has accordingly issued a letter addressing to the Executive Officer, Digha Sankarpur Development Authority, Digha

regarding supply any order or list of acquisition in respect of the subject lands. But no reply has yet been received by the Block Land & Land Reforms

Officer, Ramnagar-II.

(10) That undersigned has accordingly issued a letter addressing to the Land Acquisition Officer, Purba Medinipur regarding supply any order or list of

acquisition in respect of the subject lands. But no reply has yet been received by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ramnagar-II.â€​

This letter referred to at Annexure ‘R’ is dated September 25, 2017. It is at page 5 of the report submitted by the Block Land & Land Reforms

Officer, respondent no.6. Therefore, as early as on September 25, 2017 the State of West Bengal through its competent authority wanted the

executive officer of the respondent no.9 to disclose whether there was any acquisition or not. The writ petition itself was affirmed on February 22,

2017.

The only point to be considered is whether in the absence of due process for expropriation of the petitioners’ land or acquisition of the land by the

respondent no.9, whether through the respondent no.1 or by private treaty, any construction could have been made on the land of the petitioners by the

respondent no.9. Whether the respondent no.9 did so for creating a tourist attraction or for a public urinal or for any other purpose is immaterial. The

respondent no.9 being the development authority constituted under provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development)

Act, 1979 is a creature of the statute. Any act not expressly permitted is necessarily forbidden to it. Since the development authority was admittedly

not the person in whose favour the order of the learned Civil Court/Estate acquisitions Appellate Court or the order of the Land Reforms and Tenancy

Tribunal was passed, it cannot claim to be the owner of the said land of the writ petitioners unless it can show that it either purchased the said land or

it was acquired for and/or on his behalf.

Mr. Bihani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.9 has submitted that he is yet to receive instructions in the matter and the report of the

State of West Bengal has been handed over to him only today. Normally, I am very indulgent about giving time but Mr. Bihani cannot improve the

case of his client. If his client received a representation from the writ petitioner, which is annexed to the writ petition at page 48 on December 26,

2016 and the respondent no.9 could not show that it had acquired the land by any method whatsoever and when the writ petition was served on

respondent no.9 on September 4, 2017 as appears from page 10 of the affidavit of service and still no instruction was given to Mr. Bihani on that date,

if the respondent no.9 was in receipt of the letter of the respondent no.6, which was dated September 25, 2017 but he still did not answer how if at all

the land was acquired by and/or behalf of respondent no.9 then in 2018 on July 4 if Mr. Bihani is still without instruction is most unfortunate. Mr.

Bihani’s client shall, therefore, ceases all further constructions and pending the decision of this writ petition shall hand over the possession of the

plots in question along with constructions already made to the writ petitioners' land within 48 hours from the communication of this order to the writ

petitioners.

Let the matter appear once again under the same heading on July 10, 2018 when Mr. Bihani shall come back with further instructions as to whether

the land was duly acquired or not. If the instructions are that the land was not duly acquired or in the event no instructions are available or the

respondent no.9 is not represented on the next date, the matter shall be decided on merits in the absence of the learned advocate and/or instructions as

the case may be.

On such occasion it shall also be considered what further reliefs can be granted to the writ petitioners. In the event the instructions are brought

showing due acquisition then the writ petitioners shall immediately hand over the possession to Mr. Bihani’s client. Let a plain copy of this order,

duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.