- (1.) The instant appeal arises from an order dated 1st September 2017 passed in a writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 against the State of West Bengal. The appellant was the respondent no.10 in the said writ petition (referred to as the private respondent in the impugned order). By the said order, the respondent no. 6, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), was directed to complete the exercise of finalization of a tender dated 29th February 2016 within a period of 9 weeks from the date of communication of order and take necessary action in order to enable the writ petitioner to carry on fishing activity in the waterbody. The appellant was given liberty to challenge the order passed by the Special Revenue Officer under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 before the appropriate authority.
(2.) The issues in the instant appeal revolve around competing rights to a waterbody known as "Chhoto O - Boro Paresh bheri". The writ petitioner, a registered co-operative society, had approached this Court in WP No. 17460(W) of 2017 (in which the impugned judgment was passed) for a direction on the state respondents to issue a possession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the aforesaid waterbody located at Mouza Dhapa Manpur in North 24 Parganas. The primary contention of the writ petitioner before the learned First Court was that the writ petitioner had been successful in a tender floated by the state respondents pursuant to an order dated 11th January 2016 passed in an earlier writ petition; WP No. 30473(W) of 2015. In the impugned judgment, the learned First Court came to the following findings: a) The process of leasing out the waterbody was initiated by the State on 6th October 2015. The tender was ultimately floated by the BL & LRO on 29th February 2016. b) The decision to float a tender in connection with the waterbody was not taken on the basis of the order passed by a learned First Court on 11th July 2016 in the earlier writ petition namely WP No. 30473(W) of 2015. This is because submissions were made by the State before learned First Court in the earlier writ petition that the issue of finalization of the tender was already before a five member committee headed by the District Magistrate. The learned First Court in the order dated 11th July 2016 had accordingly directed the five member committee to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible. c) The procedure adopted by the state respondents for floating the tender in connection with the waterbody has no rational nexus with the order dated 11th July 2016. d) The procedure adopted by the state respondents for leasing out the waterbody is not without jurisdiction (as contended by the appellant herein the private respondent before the First Court). e) The writ petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition and the writ petition was maintainable. f) On being adjudged the successful bidder of the tender floated by the BL & LRO on 29th February 2016, the writ petitioner was permitted to deposit the statutory amount of Rs.2,75,000/- before the BL & LRO on 11th March 2016. g) By a process initiated by the Special Revenue Officer for correction of the record of rights under Section 57A read with Section 44 (2A) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, the record of rights was modified treating the waterbody as vested in the State of West Bengal. h) There is no evidence on record to show that the above order was set aside by any higher authority. i) By reason of the vesting of the waterbody in the State and correction of the record of rights with effect from 4th January 1993, the erstwhile owners of the waterbody cannot have any right and interest in the said waterbody on the date of execution of the lease deeds in 1995. Since the erstwhile owners of the waterbody had no right and interest in the waterbody in 1995, the appellant / private respondent cannot acquire any interest in the said waterbody by virtue of the registered lease deeds executed in 1995. j) The private respondent / appellant executed the deeds of conveyance in its favour by the erstwhile owners on 16th May 2007 and 18th March 2008 at a consideration of Rs.1/- to evade the clutches of law. The appellant has not acquired any interest in the waterbody by the deeds of conveyance executed in May, 2007 and March, 2008 as the transferors of the waterbody (the erstwhile owner) had no transferable interest in the waterbody on the date of execution of the two deeds of conveyance. k) The orders passed by this Court on 14th May 2015 in WP No. 10299(W) of 2015 and the order dated 18th September 2008 in WP No. 23115(W) of 2008 do not establish the right of the private respondent in the waterbody. l) The appellant, though in possession of the waterbody, has no right and interest in the said waterbody. No direction can be given to the state respondents to make over possession of the waterbody or execute any lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner in connection with the waterbody as the tender process has not yet been finalized despite the writ petitioner being the successful bidder.
(3.) Based on the above findings, the state respondents were directed by the learned First Court to complete the exercise in connection with the tender floated by the BL & LRO within a specified period of time. The state respondent was also given liberty to recover possession of the waterbody from the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant was given liberty to challenge the order passed on 4th January 1993 by the Special Revenue Officer under the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.;