09.09.2026 Sl. No. 4 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 24135 of 2026 Narugopal Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumyajit Bhatta. …for the petitioner Mr. Sudarsan Roy. …for the municipality Mr. D.N. Roy, ld. GP Mr. Indradeep Pal, Mr. Sudipta Ghosh, Ms. Sougata Pal Das. …for the State Mr. Arnab Roy, Ms. Debormita Biswas. …for respondent no. 5 1. Affidavit-of-service as filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for following relief:- “a) A writ or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to cancel the sanctioned plan vide no. 248 dated 09.12.2013 & demolish the entire building at Holding No. 51, Ward No. 31 and restore the water body at Mouza Dakshin Nimta, J.L No. 8, R.S Dag No. 4367 under North Dum Dum Municipality.” 3. Mr. Bhatta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, referring to the certified true copy of the relevant extract of the assessment register of North Dum Dum Municipality, submits that the building particulars recorded therein disclose that the land comprised in plot no. 4367 has 2 been classified as a pond (pukur). He further submits that the building plan, appearing at page 24 of the writ petition, would indicate that the Municipality granted sanction for construction of a two-storied residential building on the said plot. It is submitted that the petitioner is a co-sharer in respect of the said plot and acquired his right, title and interest therein by way of purchase from one of the co-sharers, namely, Bilat Ali Mondal. 4. Drawing my attention to an information slip, he submits that plot no. 4367, situated at Mouza Dakshin Nimta and measuring about 0.73 acres, is recorded as a pond. He submits that the private respondent has, by forcibly filling up the said water body, converted the same into solid land for the purpose of raising the aforesaid building, in contravention of Section 17A(1)(b) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (for short, “the 1984 Act”). He further submits that, in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 17A of the 1984 Act, upon receipt of such information, or on his own motion or otherwise, if the competent authority is satisfied that any water area, including an embankment, is being put to any use other than fisheries in contravention of sub-section (1), the competent authority is required to take appropriate action against the person responsible for filling up the water body and to take steps for restoration thereof. Placing reliance on the notification dated 20th July, 2017 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, Aquatic Resources and Fishing Harbours, he submits that, within their respective jurisdictions, the competent authority in respect of Municipal Corporations and municipalities would be the Municipal 3 Commissioner, Commissioner or Executive Officer, as the case may be. 5. He contends that the petitioner approached the municipality by submitting a representation for initiating a proceeding and taking appropriate steps for cancellation of the building plan and restoration of the pond. However, despite receipt of such representation from the petitioner, no effective steps have been taken in this regard. Such inaction has prompted the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent no. 5, submits that the petitioner is the cousin of private respondents nos. 5 and 6 and that there has been a long- standing dispute between them over the property. He submits that even a partition suit instituted by one of the co-owners of the property is pending before a competent court of law. He submits that the building plan received sanction from the concerned municipality way back in 2013, but for the first time in 2026, that is, almost after 13 years, the petitioner has raised this issue and made such complaint. He submits that the said representation has been submitted out of personal grudge with a view to harass the private respondent. He submits that this writ petition should not be entertained. 7. Mr. Sudarsan Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the municipality, submits that, as per their assessment register, the plot was recorded as land. Drawing my attention to the sanctioned plan, he submits that the sanctioned plan bears the signatures of the co-sharers of the said land. He submits that, immediately upon receipt of the representation from the 4 petitioner, the concerned plot was inspected by the officials of the municipality and, upon such inspection, it was found that there was no pond on the said plot and that no further construction had been undertaken at that plot by any of the co- sharers of the said plot of land. 8. Ms. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the State, places a written instruction and submits that, as per the records of the State, the classification of the land as on date stands as a pond and there is no document to demonstrate that the said pond was converted into Bastu land in terms of Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Act”). She submits that, as per the L.R. Record of Rights, the classification of the said plot of land is a pond. 9. In response, Mr. Bhatta claims that the building plan did not contain the signature of his vendor. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the L.R. Record of Rights continues to record the classification of plot no. 4367 of Mouza Dakshin Nimta as a pond (pukur). It is also not in dispute that no proceeding under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Act”) has, till date, been initiated at the instance of any of the co-sharers seeking conversion of the classification of the said plot of land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid classification, a building plan proposing construction of a two- storied residential building on the said plot was submitted before the Municipality and was duly sanctioned, pursuant to which the building in question came to be constructed. 5 11. It further appears that, in terms of the notification dated 27th July, 2017, the Executive Officer of the Municipality is also the competent authority empowered to take appropriate steps under Section 17A(2) of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (for short, “the 1984 Act”) in respect of the filling up or conversion of any water body, including its embankment. I am informed that, as on date, the Board of Councillors of the Municipality stands dissolved and an Administrator has been appointed, who has assumed charge of the affairs of the Municipality. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a representation before the Administrator raising the aforesaid grievance. However, despite receipt of such representation, no steps appear to have been taken thereon. 12. Since no final decision has yet been taken by the Municipality upon the grievance raised by the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the Executive Officer of the Municipality to consider and address the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 6th August, 2026 and to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, if so required. However, before taking any final decision, he shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected persons. 13. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. With these observations and order, the present writ petition is, thus, disposed of . However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6 15. Since no affidavits have been called for from the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 16. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)