PRADIP KUMAR BERA AND ANR vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

WPA No. 27067 of 2022
With
CAN No. 1 of 2025

Pradip Kumar Bera & Anr.

Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy, Adv.
Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Adv.
Ms. Sangita Banerjee, Adv.

For the Private Respondent : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Saikat Thakurata, Adv.
Ms. Dipanwita Das, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Tapasi Palit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay, Adv.

For the
Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Heard on : 02.09.2026
Judgment on : 02.09.2026
Uploaded on : 03.09.2026

2

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.: -
1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Additional Executive Officer,
Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad (in short, ‘Zilla Parishad’) in Misc.
Proceeding No. 01 of 2022.
2. By the said impugned order, the Zilla Parishad cancelled the
sanctioned plan granted earlier in favour of Sri Pradip Kumar Bera &
Sri Sudip Kumar Bera, petitioners herein, in respect of plot nos. 611,
612 and 613 upon hearing the B.D.O. Kolaghat, B.L&L.R.O.
Kolaghat, Fishery Extension Officer, Kolaghat and the present
petitioners.
3. The observation of the officer of the Zilla Parishad is quoted, inter
alia , as follows:
“The petitioners manage to procure the permission of
construction of (G+3) building plan on the strength of existing
record. But physical character of the plots is water body.
It is crystal clear that suit plots are water body in its
existing form. The Fishery Extension Officer highlighted the
provision 17A of West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act. 1984
wherein restriction is imposed on conversion of water area
etc. for other use. That being the position of physical status
of the plots as on date is water body. So those plots cannot
be converted into residential building at any point of time in
part.
Hence, it is ordered that the residential building
permission sanctioned in favour of Pradip Kumar Bera and
Sudip Kumar Bera, Vill-Bar Barisha, P.O.- Kolaghat, Dist.-

3

Purba Medinipur. Vide this office memo No.-
2270/III/PMZP/21 dated 08.10.2021 is hereby cancelled
with immediate effect. All concerned be informed
accordingly.”

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they had purchased a
total land measuring an area of about 27 decimals comprising L.R.
Dag nos. 611, 612 and 613 by virtue of three registered sale deeds in
the year 2018 from the erstwhile owners, and since then they have
had peaceful possession of the said land. The petitioners had applied
for mutation, and the same was allowed by the authority upon
perusal of the documents supplied by the petitioners. The names of
the petitioners have been mutated in the L.R. Record of Rights, and
the category of plots is recorded as Bastu.
5. After mutation of their names, they applied for building sanction plan
before the Additional Executive Officer, Purba Medinipur Zilla
Parishad and the permission was granted vide Memo No.
2270/III/PMZP/21 dated 08.10.2021 for construction of a G+3
storied building, i.e., over the land being LR Dag Nos. 611, 612 and
613, J.L. No. 288, Khatian Nos. 6001, 6006, 6007, Mouza-
Barbarisha.
6. Suddenly, the BDO Kolaghat received a complaint from one Sukalyan
Banerjee and others and raised the issue before the Zilla Parishad.

4

Upon such complaint, a proceeding was initiated against the
petitioners and a hearing was conducted. Ultimately, the sanction
plan was cancelled as aforesaid.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present
petitioners filed this writ application.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
the nature of the land, belonging to the petitioners, is Bastu as per
the Record of Rights, relying upon R.S. and L.R. records. He draws
the attention of this court to the Parcha i.e. R.S. and L.R. Learned
counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the physical
enquiry report dated 14.06.2022. Inspection was carried out by the
Enquiry Officer, Kolaghat Development Block, wherefrom, it appears
that the nature of the entire land, being Dag nos. 611, 612 and 613,
is Jala (water body) and some portions are Bastu. The petitioners
claim that the nature of the entire land of the petitioners, i.e., 27
decimals, is Bastu. Therefore, the order passed by the Zilla Parishad
is bad in law as it was passed without considering the relevant
documents, particularly R.S. and L.R. records and without proper
inquiry; therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
9. It is further submitted that the Zilla Parishad cannot cancel the
sanction plan, once it has been sanctioned and granted by it after

5

verifying all the documents of the petitioners including the registered
deed, and record of rights.
10. It is further contended that other persons have constructed buildings
and are residing on the portion of plots of land, i.e., LR Dag Nos. 611,
612 and 613 pursuant to the sanction plan; as such, all portions of
the plot are not water bodies.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent no.10,
on the other hand, vehemently raised an objection to the prayer of
the learned counsel for the petitioners and further submits that the
plots of land of the petitioners are wholly water bodies. He also relies

upon the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in the case of Public Interest Litigation being WPA(P) 60 of
2021 (Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal &
Ors.), particularly paragraph no. 4, where it was held as under:
“A detailed report filed by the State stating that there are
enquiries conducted by various authorities and from the report
submitted, it would be apparent that a pond named ‘Kalpukur’ is
situated on the subject plots of land, the major portion of which
falls with plot nos. 612 and 613. However, the inquiry does not
reveal of filing up of any portion of water body during field
inquiry.”
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad had filed a
report as per direction of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court

6

indicating therein that the entire land of the petitioners is a water
body and none of the individuals were allowed or sanctioned any plan
on any portions of the plots of land.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and BDO clearly
states that the plots involved in the writ petition were perennial water
bodies and retain water throughout the year, and those lands were
used for pisciculture.
14. Having heard the submissions of the respective parties and on careful
perusal of the materials available on record including the affidavits,
this court clearly finds from the C.S. record that all the three plots
were water bodies (Jala). No documents have been produced by the
petitioners, even when insisted by this court, to indicate when it was
converted into Bastu, and the same is recorded in the R.S. and L.R.
Record of Rights.
15. The Zilla Parishad, while hearing the petitioners and other necessary
parties, clearly stated that the said plots of land are water bodies in
their existing form. The Fishery Extension Officer highlighted the
provision 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, wherein
the conversion of water areas etc. for other uses is strictly prohibited.

7

16. Accordingly, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the Zilla Parishad, and it calls for no interference by this
Court.
17. Consequently, WPA No. 27067 of 2022 is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
18. Consequently, CAN No. 1 of 2025 is, thus, disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of the High Court at Calcutta.

21. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this Judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary and legal
formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Amalranjan