BISHNUPADA PALUI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. Affidavit of Service, filed today in Court be kept with the records.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring about 31 decimal recorded in R.S. Plot 30, 31 & 134 in the Mouza Kushpata Gobindapur bearing Khatian No. 90/1, 90/2. The said land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1997. It is submitted that after the land was purchased by the petitioner, it was demarcated by boundary and the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the said land. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for a sanction plan for construction of a single storied residential building in the said land for which two separate holding numbers were given viz., 21/2 and 21/2(Ka) under Ward No. 16 of the concerned Municipality. The said plan was sanctioned by the concerned Municipality and on the basis thereof, the petitioner was constructing his house. According to the petitioner, some Police personnel from Ghatal Police Station came and asked the petitioner to stop the construction. Accordingly, by a communication dated 24th February, 2005, the petitioner wrote to the concerned Officer-in-Charge requesting him to disclose the reason as to why the Police authorities have asked the petitioner to stop the construction. It appears that the said Officer-in-Charge on 28th February, 2005 wrote a letter, denying that the petitioner has been prevented from carrying on construction by the said Police authorities. Subsequent thereto, by a letter dated 8th March, 2005, the Chairman of the concerned Municipality asked the petitioner to stop construction on the basis of a complaint of encroachment made by the respondent No. 6 herein. It also appears that by the impugned stop work notice issued by the Chairman of the concerned Municipality, the petitioner was asked to produce a map of the land in question after measuring the same and by putting the signatures of the petitioner as well as by the complainant viz., the respondent No. 6 herein or a plan to be prepared by the BL & LRO. The question of encroachment by itself cannot be decided by the concerned Municipality as the dispute is strictly in the nature of a civil dispute and can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. However, the petitioner as owner of a land is entitled to get a sanction plan on such land over which he has legal entitlement. If any one obtains and a sanction plan by showing more and/or excess area of land, than what he is legally entitled to, that would amount to obtaining a sanction plan by suppression of material facts.

(3.) Under these circumstances, I direct the Chairman of the concerned Municipality to look into the matter and to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has obtained the sanction plan on the land over which he has legal entitlement in accordance with the Deed of Sale. If it appears that the petitioner is making construction on those lands over which he has a legal entitlement in terms of the Sale Deed, then the petitioner should be permitted to carry on with the construction work on the basis of the sanction plan. If, however, it is found that the petitioner has obtained any sanction plan on an area of land, which is in excess of his legal entitlement, in accordance with the Deed of Sale, then proper modification should be made in the sanction plan and thereafter, the petitioner shall be directed to make the construction work. It is also make clear that the petitioner is entitled to make the construction on the basis of the sanction plan and not otherwise. The direction, given above, is to be complied with by the Chairman of the concerned Municipality within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the observations above, the direction given by the Chairman of the concerned Municipality, as contained in the impugned notice dated 8th March, 2005, is set aside.