16.04.2025 26 Ct.No.7 sdas WPA 21862 of 2018 Sukdeb Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila …for the petitioner Mr. Jayanta Samanta Mr. Satyam Mukherjee … for the State Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya Mr. Sounak Mondal Mr. Chandra Nath Sarkar … for respondent no. 7 Let supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record. The petitioner, a resident of Village – Vivekanandapally, Police Station – Joynagar, District – South 24 Parganas, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Dakshin Barasat Gram Panchayat, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondent to demolish the building constructed by private respondent no. 7, which the petitioner contends is illegal. The petitioner alleges that the building in question was illegally constructed by the private respondent in the year 1994, without adherence to the prescribed procedures. It is further contended that permission for such construction was 2 granted on land classified as 'Sali' (agricultural land), in violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973 Act') and the applicable building rules. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate representing the petitioner, draws my attention to the provisions of Section 23 of the 1973 Act, arguing that no person is allowed to erect any new structure or building within the jurisdiction of a gram panchayat without first obtaining written permission from the gram panchayat. He submits that in this case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had called for a report from the concerned gram panchayat. According to the report, permission for the construction was granted in 1994, based on a verbal statement by one Dulal Chandra Sanfui on 26th May, 1994 However, Mr. Sinha points out that the document (Annexure "P-1" at page 21) itself indicates that no application was submitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the West Bengal (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 1981. He further submits that Rule 17 mandates that an application seeking permission must be made in a prescribed form, accompanied by all necessary documents, as required by the legislative framework. Additionally, it is submitted that despite having the opportunity, the private respondent has failed to produce any document demonstrating that the application seeking permission for construction was submitted in the prescribed form, as per the requirements of Rule 1981, along with all the requisite supporting documents including „Matfarakka‟ 3 receipt. Mr. Sinha argues that since the permission for construction was granted in violation of the Panchayat Act and the rules framed thereunder, the building is entirely unauthorized. Therefore, he prays that a direction be issued for the demolition of the building. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the private respondent, raises the issue of locus standi, questioning the petitioner‟s right to file the present writ petition challenging the legality of the construction made by the private respondent. He submits that the petitioner is not in any way connected to the property and/or the land on which the construction was carried out. Furthermore, the petitioner has not suffered any personal injury as a result of the construction, and therefore, he lacks the locus standi to prefer this writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharya argues that the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. While arguing on merits, he submits that the private respondent is a government employee who, upon purchasing the land, applied for a loan from his office. Producing a photocopy of the application in the prescribed form (Form-4), along with certain supporting documents, he argues that to complete the formalities, the private respondent submitted an application in the prescribed proforma. The documents, as produced by Mr. Bhattarcharya is taken on record. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the land in question has been converted into bastu land by an order passed by the concerned Collector on 1st August, 2022. 4 Mr. Samanta, learned advocate representing the State, submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner raised an allegation that he was physically assaulted by the private respondent, leading to criminal prosecution. In compliance with the order passed in the writ petition, two police personnel were deputed to the petitioner‟s residence for security purposes. Mr. Samanta further submits that the situation has now become normal, and since no further incidents have occurred, he requests that a direction be issued to release the two police personnel who were deployed at the petitioner‟s house. Heard the learned advocates representing the respective parties and perused the materials on record. The issue of locus standi has assumed significance and become fundamental to the resolution of the question regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. The term “locus standi” refers to the legal standing or right to maintain an action in a court of law. One of the essential elements of this doctrine is the presence of injury. A litigant, before maintaining any action in court, must demonstrate that the action of the respondent or respondents has caused personal injury to them. Normally, in civil action, by introducing the concept of representative suits, tight knot of locus standi was eased to some extent. To bring an action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one has to demonstrate that he has an enforceable right and there is infraction of such right or such right is illegally invaded or threatened. Admittedly, in private 5 action, no person has a right to waiver of the locus standi rule and the court shall permit carriage of proceedings only in the competent hands of a person. In matters concerning such unauthorized constructions, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in its decision reported at (2013) 5 SCC 336 (Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), as well as in the decision reported at (1974) 2 SCC 506 (Sri K. Ramdas Shenoy vs. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udupi & Ors.), entertained actions instituted by individuals who had no direct connection with the disputed construction. Furthermore, various coordinate Benches of this Court have, in matters such as W.P.A. 13617 of 2021 (Shadab Jahan Begum & Ors. vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), W.P.A. 740 of 2021 (Smt. Banasri Mondal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), W.P.A. 2311 of 2021 (Gorachand Mondal vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), and W.P.A. 5602 of 2022 (Amarendra Nath Chandra & Anr. vs. Midnapur Municipality & Ors.), entertained writ petitions filed by individuals having no direct relation to the building sought to be declared illegal. Considering the right of an ordinary citizen to initiate proceedings in matters concerning constructions that violate the applicable building rules, and in light of the principles established in the aforementioned decisions, I am not inclined to entertain the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate, regarding the maintainability 6 of this writ petition. I concur with the petitioner‟s assertion that the writ petition should not be dismissed on the grounds of locus standi. Record reveals that the building in question was constructed in 1994 on land classified as “Sali.” Before the construction, the concerned Panchayat granted permission and sanctioned the building plan, and the application was made following the prescribed procedure outlined in the rules of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. However, under Section 4(2A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the land allotted to a person is to be used for the purpose for which it was settled by the State. Section 4C of the Act empowers the Collector to convert the land and even permit a change in the mode of use of the land. Additionally, Rule 166 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991, along with Sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 4C, grants the Collector the authority to approve or regularize any change, conversion, or alteration in the character or mode of use of the land. In light of these provisions, the Collector issued an order on 1st August 2022, regularizing the change or alteration in the mode of use of the land. Since the District Collector, as a functionary of the State, has regularized the change in the use of the land, and considering that the permission for the construction was granted when the land was classified as “Sali,” I am not inclined to pass any order for the demolition of the building. 7 "It has been submitted that since the deployment of two police personnel in front of the petitioner‟s house, no incidents have occurred that would necessitate the intervention of the jurisdictional police. It is submitted that normalcy has now been restored in the locality. In such conspectus, it is not expected that two police officers should be stationed around the clock at the residence of a particular individual. In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that the State is at liberty to withdraw the two police personnel currently deployed. However, the State remains obligated to ensure that law and order in the locality is properly maintained. It is expected that, in the event of any untoward incident, the jurisdictional police will take prompt and appropriate action to address the situation. With these observations and order the writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)