Tapas Panda and others Vs State of West Bengal and others (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition involving an impugned notice concerning alleged unauthorized construction and an application for impleadment filed as CAN 1 of 2022. The proposed added parties raised an objection regarding the determination of the Bench hearing the matter. They submitted that the impugned notice, annexed at page 27 of the writ petition, was not issued under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 or the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. In support of this objection, reliance was placed on an earlier order dated 27 January 2022 passed by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, directing the authorities to undertake demolition or removal of unauthorized constructions in the vicinity of the premises under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. The writ petitioners, however, contended that the impugned notice did not specify any statutory provision and was therefore de hors the provisions of the 1962 Act. The controversy consequently concerned both the legal basis of the eviction or demolition proceedings and the appropriate Bench having determination to entertain the writ petition.
The High Court noted that both the proposed added parties and the State respondents had indicated that the proceedings were undertaken under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. Since matters arising under that enactment were not within the determination of the Bench hearing the petition, the Court considered it appropriate, as a matter of judicial propriety, that the dispute be placed before the Bench regularly assigned such matters. The Court observed that any grievance regarding compliance with Justice Mantha’s earlier order, or any alleged procedural defect or irregularity committed by the respondent authorities, would relate to the requirements of the 1964 Act and should therefore be considered by the Bench dealing with residuary matters under Group IX. Although the objection raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners was recorded, the Court did not determine the substantive validity of the impugned notice or decide the merits of the proposed impleadment. Instead, it released the matter from its list and granted liberty to the parties to seek enlistment before the appropriate Bench hearing matters under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Affidavit-in-opposition filed in court today be kept on record.
In support of CAN 1 of 2022, which is an application for impleadment / addition of party of the applicants therein, learned counsel appearing in support of the said application contends that this court does not have determination to take up the matter in view of the impugned notice, annexed at page-27 of the writ petition, not being under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 or the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
In support of such submission, learned counsel appearing for the applicant places reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha dated January 27, 2022 wherefrom it appears that the authorities were directed to undertake demolition and/or removal to address all other unauthorized construction in the vicinity of the premises as indicated therein, under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.
The principle grievance, among others, of the writ petitioners is that the impugned notice did not mention any provision of law and, as such, is de hors the provisions of the 1962 Act.
However, since it has been indicated by the proposed added party as well as the State-respondent that the procedure was undertaken under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, regarding matters under which this court does not have determination, for the sake of propriety the matter should go before the Bench regularly taking up such matters.
Even if the writ petitioners have any grievance regarding compliance of Justice Mantha’s Order and/or any alleged defect or irregularity in the procedure followed by the respondent authorities, the same pertains to noncompliance of the 1964 Act, and, as such, ought to be heard before the Bench taking up the regular residuary matters under Group IX.
The objection taken by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is noted.
However, in view of the observations above, let the matter stand released from my list with liberty to the parties to mention for enlistment before the Bench taking up the matters under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.
