Sanctioned building plans cannot authorise conversion of existing water bodies prohibited under Section 17A.

The petitioners purchased approximately 27 decimals of land comprised in L.R. Dag Nos. 611, 612 and 613, Mouza Barbarisha, Purba Medinipur, through registered sale deeds in 2018. Their names were thereafter mutated in the Record of Rights, where the land was recorded as “Bastu”.

On the basis of the mutation records and other documents, the Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad sanctioned a plan for construction of a G+3 storied building by Memo No. 2270/III/PMZP/21 dated 8 October 2021.

Following a complaint by a private individual, the Zilla Parishad initiated Misc. Proceeding No. 1 of 2022 and conducted a hearing involving the relevant local authorities.

An inspection report recorded that the land was substantially “Jala” or a water body, with some portions described as “Bastu”.

The Zilla Parishad consequently cancelled the sanctioned building plan by order dated 10 August 2022, holding that the plots were water bodies in their existing form and could not be converted for residential construction in view of Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984.

Whether the Zilla Parishad was justified in cancelling the sanctioned G+3 building plan on the ground that the subject plots were water bodies in their existing form?

Whether the petitioners’ reliance on the mutation records and R.S./L.R. entries describing the land as “Bastu” displaced the findings that the plots were water bodies and were protected from conversion under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984?

Whether the impugned cancellation order suffered from illegality or procedural infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984, which restricts the conversion of water areas or water bodies to other uses, including residential or building purposes, without lawful authority.

It further applied the principle that a building sanction cannot authorise construction contrary to statutory prohibitions or the actual legally protected character of the land.

The Court also considered the evidentiary significance of the C.S., R.S. and L.R. records, physical inspection reports, and the findings of the competent local authorities regarding the existing character of the land.

The Division Bench’s observations in Shyama Prasad Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA(P) 60 of 2021, concerning the existence of the “Kalpukur” water body over the subject plots, were also brought to the Court’s notice.

The Court found from the C.S. records that all three plots were recorded as water bodies or “Jala”.

Although the petitioners relied on subsequent mutation entries describing the land as “Bastu”, they produced no material explaining when or by what lawful process the land had been converted from a water body into homestead land.

The Zilla Parishad had considered the relevant reports and had heard the petitioners and the concerned authorities before cancelling the sanction.

The State authorities also maintained that the plots were perennial water bodies used for pisciculture.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the existing physical character of the land attracted the statutory prohibition under Section 17A, and that the earlier building sanction could not prevail over that prohibition.

The Court therefore found no illegality, procedural defect, or jurisdictional error in the cancellation order warranting judicial review.

The Zilla Parishad was therefore justified in cancelling the building sanction dated 8 October 2021.

The writ petition, WPA No. 27067 of 2022, was dismissed without costs.

CAN No. 1 of 2025 was disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.