S/L 98 28.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Suvayan WPA 6593 of 2023 Tajmira Khatun Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pratha Sarathi Roy Mr. Anindya Bose Mr. Avik Ranjan Neogi Mr. Mridul Biswas …for the petitioner. Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay …for the State. 1. The writ petitioner and the respondents/State are represented by their respective Counsels. 2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically against the respondent no. 4 for quashing of the order dated 13.01.2023 as passed in connection with an application dated 29.09.2022 of the writ petition. 3. In course of hearing Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order under challenge as has been annexed at page nos. 55 to 56 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the order under challenge it would reveal that the respondent no. 4/authority has misinterpreted the Rule 273 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the said Manual of 1991) and thus passed a cryptic and unreasoned order thereby rejecting the writ petitioner’s prayer for grant of 30 years lease in 2 respect of a water body situated at LR Plot no. 610 in Mouza – Patenda. 4. At this juncture, Mr. Roy draws attention of this Court to second page of Annexure – R1 of the report dated 21.06.2024 as filed on behalf of the respondents/State today and as has been taken on record. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the said Annexure of the report dated 21.06.2024 it would reveal that it is the specific case of the respondents/State that “50% share total area of the said plot is recorded in the name of Collector in Khatian no. 1”. It is thus submitted that such being the position the respondent no. 4/authority ought not to have come to a finding that the writ petitioner’s prayer cannot be entertained since less than 50 percent of the said tank has been partly vested and, therefore, Rule 273 of the said Manual of 1991 is applicable. 5. Per contra, Mr. Batabyal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submits before this Court that from the report as submitted today on behalf of the respondent no. 4 it would reveal that there is no ambiguity in the order which is under challenge before this Court since from the said report it would reveal that the writ petitioner is the owner of less than 50 percent of the said tank. 6. For effective adjudication of the instant lis the Rule 273 of the said Manual of 1991 is required to be 3 looked into and the same is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim: “273. Part-vested tanks-In case of part- vested (less than 50%) tanks, settlement for thirty years may be made with a private co-sharer on payment of salami and rent in the same manner as in the case of long- term settlement of non-agricultural land. Form 7 in Appendix IV shall be used for such lease. Form 6 in Appendix IV shall be used in respect of khasmahal tanks, closed khals and closed channels: Provided that if more than 50% of water area of a private tank is vested, such tank shall not be settled with the private co- sharer. The private co-sharer(s) shall form a Fish Production Group with the suitable number of local fishermen and if local fishermen are not available, shall form a fish production group with local unemployed persons selected from the families of eligible category and take settlement which shall not be given for more than 3 years. The annual rent payable shall be fixed in the manner as laid down in sub-rule (1) of rule 272 which shall be equal to the economic lease rent as fixed under the said sub-rule (1): Provided further that if the owner of non- vested portion of a part vested tank fails or declines to form a co-operative society or a fish production group, he will be required to demarcate his non-vested area by earthen boundary. If he fails or declines to do so, damage compensation at the rate of ten percent of the market value of the vested portion which is necessarily under his occupation shall be realized in terms of 4 sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (6) of section 10 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.” 7. On careful perusal of the said Rule 273 it reveals that the said Rule makes it clear that the rigor of said Rule applies in case of a part-vested water body where less than 50 percent share has been vested. 8. However, from the report as submitted today on behalf of the respondents/State it reveals that 50 percent of the share of the said water body is recorded in the name of the Collector in Khatian no. 1. 9. In view of such, this Court finds that the order dated 13.01.2023 is not correct and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Consequently, the instant writ petition succeeds. 11. Consequently, the order dated 13.01.2023 as passed by the respondent no. 4 is hereby set aside. 12. Consequently, the respondent no. 4 is hereby directed to grant lease of 171 decimals of pond in plot no. 610 in Mouza – Patenda under P.S. Kandi, District – Murshidabad within 30 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order subject to compliance of all other required formalities. 13. The respondent no. 4 is hereby directed to act on the server copy of this order. 14. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition being WPA 6593 of 2023 is disposed of. 5 15. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)