Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raghunath Karmakar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 April, 2026
21.04.2026
Sl. Nos. 1 & 2(DL)
Ct. No.14
ss/srm
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
[Assigned)
W.P.A. No. 20293 of 2023
With
CAN 1 of 2023
,
Raghunath Karmakar
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 27298 of 2022
Sabita Bhowmick
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Srinjoy Das,
Mr. Aritra Ghosh
Ms. Jui Jana
Mr. Biswajit Sengupta
Mr. Debarpan Dutta
Ms. Sneha Das
...for the Petitioner in WPA 20293/2023 &
Respondent No.7 in WPA 27298/2022.
Mr. Tanmay Basu
Mr. Manoj Adak
…for the Petitioner in WPA 27298/2022 &
Respondent No.9 in WPA 20293/2023.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Mandal
…for the State in WPA 20293/2023.
Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, AGP
Ms. Joytsna Roy Mukherjee
…for the State in WPA 27298/2022.
1. These matters are appearing in the list under the
heading ‘For Orders’.
2. By writ petition WPA 27298 of 2022 (in short WP-I),
the petitioner Sabita Bhowmick seeks for setting
aside and/or quashing of Memo No. Earth
Extraction/MM/2200/Singur dated 14th November,
2
2022 issued by the respondent No.4, Block Land &
Land Reforms Officer, Singur, Hooghly.
3. By writ petition WPA 20293 of 2023 (in short WP-II),
the petitioner Raghunath Karmakar seeks for specific
direction upon the respondent No.3, Sub-Divisional
Officer, Chandannagar, Hooghly to demolish the
illegal construction undertaken by respondent No.9
over the landed property measuring 29 Satak, Sali
land, R.S. Khatian Nos.36, L.R. Khatian Nos.1041,
1040, 1039, 1043; Khatian Nos.115, 608, 609, 610,
611, 999, R.S. and L.R. Dag No.582, Village & Mouza
– Rajarbathan, J.L. No.24 under Boinchipota Gram
Panchayat, District-Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘subject land’).
4. In WP-I, the petitioner contends that she has
purchased the subject land by dint of two registered
deeds of sale executed in the year 2017 amd 2018
respectively and her name has been duly mutated in
the record of rights. The local Gram Panchayat has
accorded permission to the petitioner for making
construction over the subject land. The report of the
concerned Gram Panchayat reveals that the subject
land has not been used for cultivation for last 25
years. On 15th July 2022 the petitioner applied for
conversion. However, without any statutory authority
respondent No.4, Block Land & Land Reforms Officer,
Singur has issued the Memo dated 14th November,
2022 under section 4C(5) of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955 (in short ‘WBLR Act‘). Being
3
aggrieved by such action of respondent no.4, the
petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
5. In WP-II, the petitioner contends that he is the
recorded bargadar of the subject land measuring 29
Satak, Sali land and he has been cultivating the
subject land for the last 40 years. The subject land
was sold by the erstwhile owners to private
respondent No.9 on 29th June, 2018. On getting
knowledge of the aforesaid conveyance, the petitioner
challenged such transfer before the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division) at Chandannagar, Hooghly in
Title Suit No.219 of 2015. At the instance of the
petitioner an order of injunction was passed by the
learned Civil Judge restraining the defendant
(respondent No.9) from changing the nature and
character of the subject land. The respondent No.9
has raised illegal construction without necessary
permission from the local Gram Panchayat and also
without conversion of the nature of land from Sali to
Bastu. Hence, the writ petition seeking for demolition
of such illegal construction.
6. Mr. Tanmay Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner
in WP-I submits that the Block Land & Land Reforms
Officer is not the appropriate authority to issue any
notice under Section 4C(5) of the WBLR Act.
Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set
aside.
7. On the contrary, Ms. Jyotsna Roy Mukhjerjee, learned
Advocate appearing for the State in WP-I submits that
4
since the petitioner tried to change the nature and
character of the subject land such notice has been
issued under Section 4C(5) of the WBLR Act. As per
Section 2(4) of the WBLR Act a Collector of a district
or any other officer appointed by the State
Government to discharge any of the function of a
Collector under this Act is the ‘Collector’. Therefore,
the BL&LRO is very much authorised to issue such
notice. Moreover, she indicates that the grievance of
the petitioner ought to have been agitated by way of
an appeal before the appropriate authority as
provided under Section 54 of the WBLR Act. She seek
for dismissal of the writ petition namely WP-I.
8. Mr. Srinjoy Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner in
WP-II and respondent No.7 in WP-I submits that the
petitioner in WP-I has failed to produce any document
showing sanction of building plan by the local Gram
Panchayat or conversion of the subject land from
‘Sali’ to ‘Bastu’ in support of the work of construction
undertaken. There is no such sanctioned building
plan or conversion of the land issued to the petitioner
to undertake any such construction over the subject
land. Since the land has not been converted the
question of sanctioning building plan would not arise
in view of Rule 26 of the West Bengal Panchayat
(Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2004’). He seeks
for appropriate orders.
5
9. Mr Tapas Kumar Mondal, learned advocate for the
State in WP-II submits that the respondent no.9 has
made construction without permission from the local
Panchayat and the nature of land is also not coverted.
10. Mr. Tanmay Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner
in WP-I and respondent no.9 in WP-II also submits
that the writ petition being WP-II is not maintainable
since the petitioner has also filed a application under
Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code seeking for
similar prayer for demolition of the structure being an
efficacious relief available to the petitioner in the civil
suit.
11. In reply to the issue of maintainability, Mr. Das,
learned advocate for the petitioner in WP-II relying on
the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court passed in Rampuria Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
versus the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
reported in AIR 1988 Cal 370 submits that since
there is violation of the provisions of the Panchayat
Act the writ petition is very much maintainable
despite pendency of the civil suit.
12. Upon hearing learned Advocate for the respective
parties, the following issues which fall for
consideration.
Firstly, whether the writ petition WP-II is
maintainable or not?
Secondly, whether the impugned notice dated 14th
November, 2022 under Section 4C(5) of the WBLR
Act issued by the respondent No.4, Block Land &
6
Land Reforms Officer, Singur is short of statutory
authority or not?
Thirdly, whether the work of construction
undertaken by the respondent No.9 in WP-II is in
accordance with the provisions of West Bengal
Panchayat Act or not?
13. With regard to Issue No.1 as to whether the writ
petition WP-II is maintainable or not, it has been
vociferously argued on behalf of the respondent No.9
in WP-II that since the petitioner has also filed a
application under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure
Code seeking for similar prayer for demolition of the
structure, the writ petition being WP-II is not
maintainable as efficacious relief is available in the
civil suit.
14. Pursuant to a direction of this Court, learned
advocate for the petitioner in WP-II produced the copy
of the plaint. It appears from the copy of the plaint of
the civil suit that the plaintiff sought for declaration
of his right as Bargadar, for permanent injunction
retraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff
from carrying his agricultural activities over the
subject land and other allied prayer. There is no
prayer for demolition of the structure. The cause of
action in the civil suit is different from the present
writ petition where plea has been raised that the
construction work undertaken by respondent no.9 in
WP-II is in violation of statutory provisions. Although
an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC has
7
been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the civil suit for
violation of order of injunction but that cannot be a
ground for dismissing the writ petition where specific
plea of violation of statutory provisions has been
raised. Hence such argument advanced on behalf of
the respondent No.9 does not stand to reason. This
court finds substance in the submission of the Mr
Das, learned advocate for the petitioner in WP-II
relying on Rampuria Brothers Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
15. With regard to Issue No.2 as to whether the
impugned notice dated 14th November, 2022 under
Section 4C(5) of the WBLR Act issued by the
respondent No.4, Block Land & Land Reforms Officer,
Singur is short of statutory authority or not, it is seen
that precisely the impugned notice dated 14th
November, 2022 of respondent No.4 is challenged on
the ground of authority of the issuing officer.
16. In order to examine the aforesaid issue it would be
profitable to reproduce Section 4C(5) of the WBLR Act
as hereunder:
“Section 4C(5)(a) Without prejudice to the foregoing
provisions of this section, where any plot of land
has been changed or converted or altered in
violation of this section, if the Collector, on his own
motion or on receiving information, is of the opinion
that it is necessary so to do in public interest, he
may make an order directing a raiyat or a lessee for
restoration of the original character of the concerned
land within a specified time.
(b) On receipt of the order, the raiyat or the lessee
shall restore the original character of the plot of land
at his own cost within such time, as may be ordered
by the Collector.
8
(c) If the raiyat or lessee fails to comply with the
order, the Collector may take action for restoring the
original character of such plot of land and realise
the cost for restoration from the raiyat or the lessee.
(d) If the raiyat or lessee fails to pay the cost of
restoration, the Collector may realise the cost as a
public demand in accordance with the provision of
the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913
(Ben. Act III of 1913)].
17. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it
manifest that where any plot of land has been
changed or converted or altered in violation of the
provision of the section, the Collector, on his own
motion or on receiving information, is of the opinion
that it is necessary so to do in public interest, he may
make an order directing a raiyat or a lessee for
restoration of the original character of the concerned
land within a specified time. Admittedly, the
impugned notice under section 4C(5) of WBLR Act
has been issued by the Block Land & Land Reforms
Officer, Singur. Section 2(4) of the WBLR Act defines
that a ‘Collector’ means the Collector of a district or
any other officer appointed by the State Government
to discharge any of the function of a Collector under
the Act. Therefore, the word ‘Collector’ in the section
is not limited to the Collector only and it extends to
any other officer appointed by the State Government
to discharge such function. Nothing has been
demonstrated by the petitioner in WP-I that the BL&
LRO was not appointed to take such measure under
section 4C(5) of the WBLR Act. Such being the
9
position, the argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioner in WP-I does not hold good and accordingly
the prayer in the writ petition WP-I falls short of
merit.
18. It has been pressed into service on behalf of the State
in WP-I that the prayer in the writ petition seeking for
setting aside/quashing of the impugned order dated
14th November 2022 issued by Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer Singur Hooghly ought to have been
challenged by way of an appeal under Section 54 of
the WPLR Act. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note
that the petitioner in WP-I has challenged on the
ground of lack of authority of the officer concerned in
issuing such notice. Article 226 of the Constitution of
India confers power on all High Courts to issue
prerogative writs, directions or orders for enforcing
fundamental rights or for other purposes. The
existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar
to the granting of a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution. An alternative remedy does not operate
as a bar to the exercise of writ court’s jurisdiction of
judicial review is cases (i) seeking enforcement of a
fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of natural
justice; and (iii) where the impugned orders or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the
vires of an Act is challenged. [See M.P State Agro
Industries Development Corpn Ltd versus Jahan
Khan reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88]. Therefore, such
argument advanced on behalf of the State is not
10
sustainable in facts and circumstances of the
challenge.
19. With regard to Issue No.3 as to whether the work of
construction undertaken by the respondent No.9 in
WP-II is in accordance with the provisions of West
Bengal Panchayat Act or not, it is found that the
petitioner in the writ petition WP-II challenges the
legality of work of construction undertaken by the
respondent No.9, on the ground that neither the
nature of land has been converted nor any sanctioned
building plan has been obtained by the respondent
No.9 prior to making his construction.
20. Needless to mention that respondent No.9 has failed
to produce any document showing conversion of land
and issuance of sanctioned building plan in her
favour by the local Gram Panchayat. Further Rule 26
of Rules of 2004 provides that if any structure or
building is proposed to be erected or constructed on
any land recorded otherwise than as homestead land,
the Gram Panchayat shall withhold permission for
such erection or construction until the applicant
produces an order allowing change of classification of
the said land by the Collector or any other competent
authority having jurisdiction under any law for the
time being in force.
21. In view of the above, respondent no.6, Pradhan,
Baichipota/Boinchipota Gram Panchayat is directed
to consider and dispose of the representation of the
11
petitioner dated 12th May, 2023 (Annexure P-5 in WP-
II) by adopting the following procedure:
(i) Cause an inspection on the property-in-question
upon notice to the petitioner as well as private
respondent No.9. A report of such inspection
along with sketch map be prepared, which shall
be handed over to the parties.
(ii) Thereafter the parties shall be heard upon notice
and representation of the petitioner dated 12th
May, 2023 shall be disposed of by a reasoned
order which shall be communicated to the
parties within a week of passing of such orders.
Parties are granted liberty to produce all relevant
records and documents before the Pradhan at
the time of hearing.
(iii) On the basis of materials transpiring during
inspection and hearing, the proceedings shall be
taken to its logical conclusion in terms of
provisions of Section 23 of West Bengal
Panchayat Act.
(iv) The entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of two months from date of
communication of this order.
22. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in WP-II is
directed to communicate this order to respondent
no.6, Pradhan, Baichipota/Boinchipota Gram
Panchayat along with copy of the representation
dated 12th May, 2023.
12
23. In view of discussion made in the foregoing
paragraph, the writ petition being W.P.A. No.27298
of 2022 (WP-I) stands dismissed.
24. With the above directions, the writ petition being
W.P.A. No.20293 of 2023 (WP-II) stands disposed of.
25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
26. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of
the order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
29. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied
for, be given to the parties on compliance of all
necessary legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
