HALDIA MUNICIPALITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur dated August 17, 2022 passed in Appeal No. 16(AO) of 2022 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of Haldia Municipality. By the said order, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate was directed to recover possession and remove encroachment from plot no. 751/1452 under the provisions of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 within a specified time limit.

(2.) Petitioner claims that the Panchayat authority constructed latrines and urinals on a part of LR Plot no. 751/1452. Pursuant to an order passed in WPA 22242 of 2019, a proceeding under Sec. 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (for short "the 1964 Act") was initiated and Sub- Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated April 8, 2022 under Sec. 10(3) of the 1964 Act directing the Assistant Engineer, Haldia Highway Sub- Division to recover possession and remove encroachment from plot no. 751/1452. Challenging the aforesaid order dated April 8, 2022, petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 10(4) of the 1964 Act before the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur being Appeal no. 16(AO) of 2022. The said appeal was disposed of by directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia to recover possession and to remove encroachment from plot no. 751/1452 under the provisions of the 1964 Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur dated August 17, 22, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition contended that the Public Works Department vide Memo dated November 18, 1988 permitted the Haldia Notified Area Authority at present, Haldia Municipality to start construction works of office complex, public urinals over the land in question. He contended that pursuant to the said permission, constructions were raised and the same has been repaired and altered periodically. Mr. Basu placed reliance upon the provisions of the Government Buildings Act, 1899 (for short "the 1899 Act") more particularly Sec. 3 thereof in support of his contention that the said Act provides an exemption to the local authorities in respect of construction of any building. He further contended that the writ petitioner being a legal authority is duty bound to make adequate arrangements for setting up of urinals and other amenities in discharge of its public duties. He further contended that since the writ petitioners were authorised to raise construction by virtue of the 1899 Act, the 1964 Act cannot have any manner of application in respect of construction made by the petitioner upon any land belonging to the Public Works Department. He further contended that since the provisions of Sec. 10 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked in the case on hand, the orders passed in such proceedings are without jurisdiction.