Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for appropriate orders.
(2.) The appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 23rd November, 2017, passed by a learned Single in W. P. 27615 (W) of 2017 (Rajib Kumar Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors).
(3.) The appellants before us are the five writ petitioners, who, without having a semblance of jural relationship, joined as co-petitioners and filed a writ petition, which stood dismissed in terms of the following order: - "Heard Mr. Partho Sarathi Deb Barman, being assisted by Mr. Kamalesh Jha, representing the writ petitioners. Heard Mr. Advocate General, being assisted by Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, representing the State. The writ petition has been filed for setting aside and/or rescinding the order dated 14th September, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansol Sadar, Paschim Bardhaman in Case No. 662 of 2017 under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 in respect of Plot No. 1337 of J.L. No. 56 under Police StationSalanpur and order under appeal dated 8th November, 2017 passed by District Magistrate & Collector, Paschim Bardhaman. Mr. Deb Barman invited attention to the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act and submitted that the authority virtually debarring the writ petitioners to prefer an appeal as against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within the statutory period allowed the alleged eviction order to be executed by making demolition of the standing structure belonging to the writ petitioners. In other fold of argument, it is submitted that possession of the writ petitioners was being exercised as of his own right by purchasing the impugned property and no document could be produced by the government in support of taking physical possession under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. Mr. Deb Barman, of course, submitted that though this point regarding taking over possession by the State under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act was not taken before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but since it is a law point the same is argued before this Court. In a gist by criticizing the hot haste act and action by the appellate authority in the matter of implementing the order of eviction of alleged unauthorised eviction by disallowing the writ petitioners to exercise right of appeal within the statutory period, which still exists, the writ petition is filed for the relief as mentioned in the prayer portion. Learned Advocate General per contra submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed with cost as efficacious remedy still exists to prefer appeal and instead of doing so the instant writ petition has been filed by incorporating some irrelevant documents which are not liable to be considered for justification any merit of the case of the writ petitioners. To invoke the jurisdiction within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court before issuing any rule depending on the facts and circumstance of the case it shall measure as to whether the writ petitioners are in possession of any pre-existing legal right over the subject. In the case in hand the authority under Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 upon hearing recorded the impugned orders in respect of 0.50 acres pertaining to Plot No. 1337 of J.L. No. 56 of Mouza Achhra under P.S. Salanpur recorded in Khatian No. 01 in favour of the District Collector in the successive stages of settlement of operation. It is needless to mention that if any land is recorded in the name of the Collector in the record of right during settlement operation the same is deemed to be vested one. Such entry of the record of right has presumptive value, which of course is rebuttable. The writ petitioners though had come up, rather attempted to ventilate a case of ownership over the alleged plot No. 1337 but no document could be produced that the writ petitioners had ever taken any legal step before any civil court of competent jurisdiction for getting their ownership and title declared over such plot No. 1337 which is said to have been recorded in the name of the District Collector in Khatin No. 01 of Mouza in question. On the contrary, the writ petitioners for the reasons best known to them produced some documents like rent receipt, application for conversion of the land and the record of rights from where it reveals that all those documents had no relevance with the impugned plot No. 1337, rather the same were connected with Plot No. 1347. Now, looking into the grounds which were exercised before the learned District Magistrate, Asansol it appears that virtually no point of law could be urged for review by which any recourse could have been re-opened within the ambit of Section 7(2) of the Act, meaning thereby, had there been any remedy to meet the grievance as against the order of eviction, the writ petitioners may have utilise the same by preferring regular appeal before the statutory authority. Of course, as it has been ventilated that by this time the authority under the Act had executed the order of eviction by demolishing the structure standing thereupon. During foregoing discussion, this Court took note that the writ petitioners had taken one defence of ownership. Therefore, had there been sanctity and truthfulness to justify such legal right, in that event, there cannot be any legal impediment as well to claim demurrage and compensation subject to proof before the court of competent jurisdiction of civil authority about ownership over the subject plot which may be altogether a different proceeding which may not be handicapped or embargoed by any finding of this proceeding. Because, the writ petition is for the consideration of the prayer of the writ petitioners over the act and action held by the authority under the Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act which on the face of the materials on record could not be found otherwise perverse to make interference even at this stage. Therefore, this Court does not find any legal reason to keep such a writ petition alive for any purpose whatsoever, specially when, the efficacious remedy still subsists in favour of the writ petitioners, if the writ petitioners are so advised. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.";