MASSDAK HOSSAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramdulal Manna appearing with Mr. M. Alam Sk., the learned Advocate for the State, Mrs. Pratima Prativa Chowdhury and the learned Advocate for respondent No. 7, Mr. Jayanta Kr. Das. Considered the materials on record.

(2.) The matter relates to a particular pond though actually it is a lake named as 'Pir Pukur', having an area of 2.78 acres. According to the petitioner, he took lease of the said pond from Daulatpur Gram Panchayat for a period of 10 years starting from 18th April, 1992 to be ended on 31st March, 2001. Further allegation of the petitioner is that the said pond was settled by way of lease by the then Prodhan of Daulatpur Gram Panchayat, P.S. Harischandrapur, Dist-Malda, in terms of certain resolution. Be it mentioned that the said Prodhan has not been made a party in this case, nor the members of the Gram Panchayat have been made parties in this writ application. It has further been stated that for 10 years the said pond was settled with the petitioner at Rs. 1705/-. As per the writ application the lease agreement was an oral one and on the basis of the agreement, the petitioner spent about Rs. 60,000/- for the purpose of evicting the persons who were in forceful occupation of that pond. That apart, the petitioner had to spend a large sum of money for development of that pond for pisciculture and for other ancillary development and with the coming of the new Gram Panchayat, by a notice dated 22nd April, 1996, as in annexure 'G' to the affidavit-in-opposition the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malda, respondent No. 3, cancelled that lease. That is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court. There was a further development after filing of the writ application. The State authority or the respondents Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 tried to resettle the pond for which there was a contempt application and since then there was no threat of taking of the pond and the contempt application failed.

(3.) According to Mr. Manna, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, later this pond along with other ponds were settled to other persons for more than 3 years by the then prodhan in conjunction with the Gram Panchayat. The prodhan respondent No. 7, was a member of the Gram Panchayat at that time.Mr. Manna further submitted that as the lease was created for a period of 10 years, that cannot be cancelled behind the back of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, as per the principle of 'Audi alterem partem', a hearing is to be given to his client.