14 18.07.2025 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 15494 of 2025 Samraggi Choudhury -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anindya Lahiri. Sr. Adv. Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta. Mr. Tirthankar Dey. Mr. Shankar Mukherjee. Mr. Subhomoy Paul. Mr. Anish Chakraborty. Ms. Ria Naskar. …For the Petitioner. Ms. Sonal Sinha. Mr. Avishek Prasad. … for the English Bazar Municipality. Mr. Somnath Ganguly. Ms. Pratiti Das. … For the State. 1. The petitioner claims to be the recorded land owner in respect of certain plot of land which is recorded as Nama currently Bastu in the Record of Rights maintained by the Land Department. 2. The petitioner apprehends that the said land of the petitioner may be treated as a wetland without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Reference has been made to the order dated 22nd March, 2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench Kolkata in Original Application No. 30 / 2023/EZ in the matter of Subhash Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors wherein there is a direction upon the Committee constituted by the Tribunal to visit and inspect the site of Chatra Bill and submit its report with regard to the encroachments alleged to have been made upon the water body and it shall suggest remedial measures for restoration of the water body to its original pristine form as well as remedial measures to ensure that there is no further encroachment over the water body. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that, as on date, the records of the subject land does not suggest that the land is a water body and, accordingly, the Tribunal could not have entertained any petition in respect of the subject plot of land. 5. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not been involved in the process of identification of the water body. The petitioner purchased the subject plot of land with valuable consideration and will not be able to use and enjoy the same if it is classified as a wetland/ water body. 6. According to the petitioner, the proposal for conversion of the classification of the land is nearly over and there is every possibility that the proposal to change the classification of the subject land will be approved by the Authority. 7. Prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from taking any steps for converting the classification of the subject land. 8. Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits, upon instruction that, the writ petition is a premature one. There is no cause of action by which the petitioner can be aggrieved at this stage. 9. The provision of Rule 7 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 has been placed before this Court which mentions that the concerned department of the State Government or Union Territory Administration, shall, within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Rules, prepare a brief document for each of the wetland identified for identification. Based on the brief document, the Authority shall make recommendations to the State Government for notifying the wetlands. The State Government shall, after considering the 2 objections, if any, from the concerned and affected persons, notify the wetland in the official gazette. 10. It has been submitted that, as on date, the draft notification has not been published. As and when the State takes a decision for notifying the land as a wetland, the petitioner may file objection against the same. 11. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court it appears that, as on date, there is no order, decision, notification from any competent authority declaring the land of the petitioner as a wetland. According to the subject Rules, there is a provision for filing objection prior to the declaration of the land as wetland. The said process has not begun till date. 12. The petitioner relies upon certain documents to suggest that the Committee has directly approached the State Government for declaring the land as a wetland. 13. According to the Court, the conception of the petitioner may be erroneous. Law does not permit declaration of any land as wetland without granting any opportunity to the affected person or the concerned persons to submit objection. 14. The matter is already pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has directed the Authority to visit and inspect the site and submit its report. The Tribunal shall proceed to decide the issue after hearing all the parties. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of. 16. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J.) 3