29.04.2025 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (D/L 4) IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI Ct. No. 1 (Naba) M.A.T. 56 of 2021 With CAN 2 of 2023 Uttam Dutta & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumdar, Mr. Shubhankar Dutta, Mr. Soumik Sarkar, Mr. Swagata Mitra … for the Appellants Mr. Subir Kr. Saha, ld. AGP, Mr. Pertom Das, Mr. Sourav Sarkar … for the State Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Mr. Samundra Mani Pradhan, Mr. Aniket Bhowmick … for the Respondent No.7 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioners were served with a notice dated 03.10.2020 by the Assistant Tahsildar, Matigara Hat. The notice was alleging that the writ petitioners neglected to comply with the order given by the S.D.O., Siliguri under Memo. No. 23/(6)/DIF dated 28.02.2020. Since the petitioners failed to comply with the said order, they were directed by the Assistant Tahsildar to demolish immediately within three days the 2 structures as were required to be demolished under the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.02.2020. 3. Since the demolition has been directed in purported compliance of the findings arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order dated 28.02.2020, we deem it appropriate to reproduce relevant extract of the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer which reads as follows: “…Finally, as per report submitted by Assistant Tehsilder, Matigara D.I. Fund Hat vide memo no.3/DIF dated 20/01/2020 after spot inspection of the said area, it is found that Sri Tarun Kumar Saha has been using the original pathway which is on the post office side as the main entrance and there is no obstruction in ingress or egress to his property. Hence, Sri Saha is directed to use this original pathway which he had been using since long as the main entrance. He is also directed to seek permission for all the shop construction he made, in writing and submitting prescribed fees properly. The other parties, namely, Sri Bhanu Dutta S/o. Late Surendra Nath Dutta, Sri. Ratan Dutta S/o. Sri Bhanu Dutta, Sri Pramod Gupta S/o Late Bishun Chand Gupta, Uttam Dutta S/o Late Gopal Chandra Dutta, Dilip Singha S/o Nagen Singha and Smt. Anjana Das W/o Sri Uttam Dutta are hereby directed to unblock the drain, not to construct any pucca structure over the hat-road, demolish pucca structure (if any), and not to encroach any portion of hat land. However, they may use 3 open hat surface (not hat-road) by paying tolls like season ticket/SR fees. The Assistant Tehsilder, Matigara D.I. Fund Hat is directed to oversee compliance of this order.” 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the notice issued by the Tahsildar was unsustainable. The order of the Sub- Divisional Officer dated 28.02.2020 did not record any definite finding regarding there being any pucca structure erected by any of the writ petitioners. The order directed for unblocking of the drain, not to construct any pucca structure over the hat-road; and proceeded to pass a direction for demolition of pucca structure (if any). The order, therefore, did not have any finding regarding existence of any pucca structure. The Assistant Tahsildar’s notice dated 03.10.2020 in purported compliance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to immediately demolish the pucca structure was thus factually unsustainable and incapable of execution. 5. The Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the matter has dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the Hon’ble Single Judge has refused to interfere with the notice of the Assistant Tahsildar by recording a finding that the steps were taken for demolition of pucca 4 structures which admittedly were constructed by the petitioners, though there was no such admission of the petitioners on record in the writ proceedings. 6. The learned senior counsel would thus submit that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is unsustainable. The petitioners were in fact entitled to protection of the Court by issuance of appropriate directions restraining the authorities from in any way giving effect to the notice of the Assistant Tahsildar dated 03.10.2020. 7. It is under such circumstances that this Court earlier in the present proceedings directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siliguri to submit a report upon spot verification. The report which has been submitted after a joint inspection by several officers, whose signatures are inscribed on the report, reveals the following state of affairs: “1. During enquiry it is revealed that Uttam Dutta, Dilip Singha, Ratan Dutta, Promod Gupta & Smt. Anjana Das is currently running a business on D.I. Fund Land in LR Plot no 333 & 408 (corresponding to RS Plot no 142 & 147) where Dilip Singha, Ratan Dutta, Promod Gupta & Smt Anjana Das has erected temporary structure made of Galvanised Corrugated Sheet walls and roof with wooden/Bamboo frame and Sri Uttam Dutta has erected a permanent structure made of Brickwalls at the sides and tin sheet and iron/wooden frame at the front and roof but they are unable to produce any 5 valid document for constructing the said structure. 2. During enquiry Sri Tarun Kumar Saha submitted a patta issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Siliguri. It is seen from the patta that Sri Tarun Kumar Saha, S/o Late Ambika Chandra Saha got 2880 sqft land in CS Plot No 156, 157/Pt (corresponding to RS Plot No 143, 143/307 corresponding to LR Plot No 415, 416) as patta. It is also seen that he has constructed a single storeyed RCC fame permanent building on that land but he is unable to produce any valid document from the appropriate authority for constructing the said building. It is to be noted that Uttam Dutta & four other and Sri Tarun Kumar Saha are in possession of separate land in separate plots. This is for your kind information and perusal.” 8. In view of the report upon joint inspection regarding the factual position at the Hat (Matigara Hat), it is submitted by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners that insofar as existence of any pucca structure, a finding has been recorded only in respect of petitioner no.1, namely, Sri. Uttam Dutta. He seriously disputes the correctness of such findings and seeks liberty to assail the findings in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 9. Since, copies of the report have been served on the appellants’ learned counsel, we reserve the 6 liberty of the appellants to assail the findings in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 10. Insofar as the other writ petitioners are concerned, the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer does not record any finding regarding existence of any permanent structure made by them. 11. In view of such findings being placed on record by the respondents in the writ petition themselves, in our considered opinion, the notice of the Assistant Tahsildar dated 03.10.2020 is rendered infructuous by the subsequent event, being the report dated 08.04.2025, insofar as the writ petitioner/appellant nos.2 to 5 are concerned. 12. Insofar as the writ petitioner/appellant no.1 is concerned, we have already reserved the liberty of this appellant to assail the findings contained in the report dated 08.04.2025 in accordance with law. 13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)