1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi F.M.A. 1431 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. Krishna Pada Paul & Ors. For the Appellants : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Tirthankar Dey Mr. Arka Kumar Nag For the Writ petitioner/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shamim Ul Bari For the State : Mr. Suman Ghosh Ms. Rupsha Chakraborty Heard and Judgment on : January 24, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Appeal is at the behest of the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation and its functionaries and directed against an order dated August 31, 2023 passed in W.P.A. 6523 of 2018. 2 2. Private respondent/writ petitioner herein approached the Writ Court with a prayer for a direction upon the appellants to remove a submersible tube well installed in the land claimed to be belonging to the private respondent /writ petitioner which falls under Dag No. 188, Khatian No. 2296. 3. Learned Single Judge noted that there was dispute as to whether the submersible tube well was installed on the land belonging to the private respondent/writ petitioner in Dag No. 188 under Khatian No. 2296 or not. 4. Learned Single Judge called for a report from the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Learned Single Judge considered the report dated July 5, 2023 of the B.L. & L.R.O. Learned Single Judge also considered the Record of Rights in connection with the Dag No. 188. Learned Single Judge after appreciating the materials on record arrived at the finding that the appellants were not the owners of the land where the tube well was installed in Dag No. 188. 5. It is the contention of the appellants that, the submersible tube well was installed on a portion of Dag NO. 188 which was acquired by the State. 6. In the teeth of such contentions, we called upon the relevant authorities to submit a report. State submitted a report which was taken on record. Writ petitioner/private respondent sought to file an exception to the report, permission whereof was granted. Exception to the report submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner/private respondent be taken on record. 3 7. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/private respondent contends that the submersible tube well was not installed on the land acquired by the State. According to him, Dag No. 188 is a large area. A portion thereof was acquired. The balance portion which was not acquired was 1.81 acres. Out of 1.81 acres unacquired portion, his client purchased 0.07 acres. In support of such contentions, he draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in the exception to the report as also to the land map of the acquisition proceeding of 2005-06 of the concerned mouza. 8. State is represented. 9. According to the State, submersible tube well was installed by the appellants in the acquired portion of Dag No. 188. 10. In our view, a detailed enquiry other than which Writ Court could undertake on affidavit evidence should be undertaken in order to ascertain the area of Dag No. 188, the portion of Dag No. 188 which was acquired by at least two acquisition proceedings, the portion of the area where the submersible tube well was installed and the portion of 0.07 acres which the writ petitioner/private respondent claimed to purchase in Dag No. 188. This entire exercise is required in order to ascertain the respective rights of the parties in respect of Plot No. 188. 11. We are not in a position to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that on the basis of the materials produced in Court, such an exercise 4 can be fruitfully undertaken by a Writ Court. Spot enquiry is required to be undertaken. Parties should be allowed to lead evidence both documentary and oral to conclusively decide such issue. 12. In order to grant relief to the writ petitioner/private respondent, writ Court will have to demarcate the area of 0.07 acres in Dag No.188 which the writ petitioner/private respondent claim to be owner of, declare the title of the writ petitioner/private respondent with regard thereto and conclusively arrive at a finding that the submersible tubewell was installed in the portion belonging to the writ petitioner. There is no admitted document or documents on record on the basis of which such findings can be returned by a writ Court. The claims of the writ petitioner/private respondent are contested by the appellants and the State. 13. In such circumstances, we are unable to sustain the impugned order. 14. Order dated August 31, 2023 is set aside. 15. M.A.T. 1431 of 2024 is allowed without any order as to costs. 16. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all connected applications are disposed of. 17. This order will not prevent the parties from availing of their respective rights before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 5 18. I agree. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) S.D.