BIJOY KRISHNA BHANDARY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated January 5, 2004 is seeking a mandamus commanding the authorities of Diamond Harbour Municipality to reconstruct his rice-milling shop that they demolished and to return his engine, rice-milling machinery, and equipment he was using for carrying on rice-milling operation from the shop, and the other valuable properties and documents which all were taken away by the people who demolished the shop.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is this. He is the owner of the properties that he was using for carrying on a lawful rice-milling trade from the shop constructed on the land in Plot No. 93, J. L. No. 88, Khatian No. 79, Mouza makalhat, P. S. Diamond Harbour, District-South 24-Parganas. Initially he rented the construction. Under a registered conveyance dated September 29, 1995 he purchased the land and the construction from their owner, maya Karmakar. On April 24, 2003 he submitted an application to the chairman, Diamond Harbour Municipality, South 24-Parganas seeking mutation of the assessment records. The construction, a tiled top structure with brick walls, was, however, in a State of dilapidation. He made arrangements for replacing the broken tiles of the overhead covers with new ones, and reconstructing the broken walls. On November 25,2003 the Vice Chairman of the Municipality issued a notice alleging that he was illegally erecting a building. On December 1, 2003 he submitted an application stating the need to repair and reconstruct his twenty feet by fourteen old construction and seeking permission for the purposes from the Chairman. During pendency of the application and without giving any notice and making any order, and behind his back, on December 14, 2003, a Sunday, the people of the municipality, with the assistance of the local police, illegally broke open the padlock of the shop, demolished the construction and took away all the properties. On December 15, 2003 he submitted a representation stating what happened on December 14, 2003 and demanding compensation and reconstruction of the shop. He went to lodge an FIR but the local police refused to register the FIR. Hence he lodged an F. I. R. with the Superintendent of Police on December 15, 2003, but he did not take any action as well. Under the circumstances, he was compelled to approach this Court.

(3.) THE fourth and fifth respondents are the Chairman and the Vice chairman of the municipality respectively. The ninth respondent is one krishna Bera (Baidya ). She was the commissioner of Ward No. 2 of the municipality at the relevant time. These respondents have jointly filed an opposition dated April 2, 2004 verified by the solemn affirmation made by the Chairman. Their case is this. On November 4, 2003 Krishna found that after demolishing his old construction and without taking any permission from the municipality, the petitioner started erecting a new construction. Under the circumstances, the Vice Chairman issued the stop-work notice dated November 5, 2005. The notice was received by the petitioner, who, accordingly, stopped work. On December 1, 2003 the municipality received the petitioner's application seeking permission to reconstruct his shop. He, however, did not submit any plan. On December 14, 2003 Krishna gave the Chairman notice that in violation of the stop-work notice, from the night of December 13, 2003, the petitioner started erecting a Pucca wall. It was further learnt that the petitioner started erecting the new construction by enclosing a part of the public pathway situated in front of his shop. Under the circumstances, finding to other alternative the Chairman sent the staff of the Municipality with local police to demolish the illegal construction erected on the public pathway (not on the plot of the petitioner), so that local people might not face any obstruction to their smooth movement. After demolishing the new construction, the people engaged in the work asked the petitioner to take his rice-milling machinery inside the room, but he refused to take the machinery and put his signature on any register or document. Finding no other way, they brought the machinery and other things to office for safe custody. On december 15, 2003 the petitioner filed an application alleging that in his absence his shop was demolished, and demanding his machinery and other things back. On December 19, 2003 the Chairman sent his peon to the petitioner with a notice asking him to attend the office of the municipality and collect the machinery and other things. He refused to accept the notice. After receiving the copy of the writ petition the Chairman sent a notice dated February. 6, 2004 asking him to collect the things. Though he received the notice, he did not collect his machinery and other things from the office of the Municipality.