SHYAM SUNDAR BELEL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking review of the order dtd. 16/3/2022, whereby certain directions in respect of restoration of the disputed plot to its original character were issued and the competent authorities were asked to take necessary steps for the same.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed land by purchase of the same by and under a deed of sale dtd. 7/1/2013. As per the R.S record of rights, the land is classified as 'Danga' and the reason for stating the land as 'Doba' in the deed of sale was not clearly known to the petitioner. However, the B.L and L.R.O had referred to the R.S Record of Right stating that the classification of R.S Plot no. 2587 is a 'Doba' while the L.R Record of Right was effectively in force. Moreover, the petitioner after purchasing it is maintaining the same as it is, thereby filing the review petition for setting aside the status report submitted by the B.L and L.R.O. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that there was an error prima facie on the status report, however, the same could not be pointed out by the petitioner as the copies of the same were not made available to him despite exercising due diligence in the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, he advanced elaborate argument and sought review of the order.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the State is that under the guise of review, the review petitioner cannot seek reopening of the entire case where the respondent authorities acted on the direction of the Learned Court to restore the land considering the classification as 'Pukur' as per a thorough status report. The petitioner has violated Sec. 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by unauthorized filing of the water body without obtaining prior permission from the authorities as per report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Parbatipur, G.P and other evidences. Despite issuance of show-cause notice by the respondent authorities to stop such unauthorized filing of the plot and to remove any filling materials, the pond in question is filled up leaving only one-fourth area at the south-west portion of as waterbody. The material pointed out by the review petitioner claiming to be that the plot in question is 'Danga' is disputed, not corroborated with other relevant documents and such doubts of illegality is confirmed by obtaining a certified copy of Record of Rights. The respondent authorities took prompt action against the review petitioner keeping in mind the plight of villagers of the surrounding area in the ensuing rainy season for non-drainage of rainwater in the said pond.