12 18.07.2025 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 15489 of 2025 Subhendu Chowdhury -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. Kanok Kiron Bandopadhyay. … For the State. 1. The petitioner is a recorded land owner in respect of certain plot of land which is classified and recorded as Bastu in the Record of Rights maintained by the land department. 2. The petitioner apprehends that the classification of the land of the petitioner may be changed from ‘Bastu’ to ‘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 Beel and submit its report with regard to the encroachments alleged to have been made upon the waterbody and it shall suggest remedial measures for restoration of the waterbody to its original pristine form as well as remedial measures to ensure that there is no further encroachment over the waterbody. 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 waterbody 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 waterbody. The petitioner purchased the subject plot of land with valuable consideration and will not be able to use and enjoy the same if the same is classified as a wetland/waterbody. 6. According to the petitioner, the process 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. The same inter alia mentions that the concerned department of the State Government, 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 2 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 objections, if any, from the concerned and affected persons, notify the wetland in the official gazette. 10. It has been submitted that, the draft notification has not yet been published. As and when the State takes a decision for notifying the land as a wetland, the petitioner may file objection. 11. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court it appears that currently there is no order, decision, notification from any competent authority declaring the land of the petitioner as a wetland/waterbody. According to the subject Rules there is a provision for filing objection prior to the declaration of the land as wetland. The said process of inviting objections 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 petitioner may be reeling under a misconception that the classification of the land may be altered unilaterally by the State without giving any opportunity of hearing. Law does not permit declaration of any land as wetland without granting any opportunity to the affected person or the concerned person to submit objection. 14. Right now there is no cause of action requiring interference by this Court. 15. 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. 3 16. The writ petition stands disposed of. 17. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J.) 4