PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging in effect an order of the learned Commissioner, Presidency Division passed on August 5, 2015 in Appeal Case No. Misc. 02 of 2015-16 upholding an order dated April 20, 2015 passed by the Collector in Case No. 3/(Eviction)/SDO/DH of 2015. Though the writ petitioner has taken many grounds including the erstwhile lease, I choose to hear it on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and gross violation of the basic principles of natural justice.
(2.) It is the express case of the writ petitioner that a proceeding was initiated under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 as appears from Annexure- P11 at p.67 of the writ petition. The notice, issued by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, being the sixth respondent, dated April 9, 2015, refers to an order dated March 10, 2015 passed by this court in WP No. 5813(W) of 2015 as the reason for starting of the proceeding anew. The said March 10 order on page 60 of the writ petition shows that in the first round of the case being Misc. Case No. 02 of 2014-15 a similar order as the order assailed in this petition had been challenged by the writ petitioner and a direction to hear afresh after service had been given by a co-ordinate Bench after quashing and setting aside the order of the sixth respondent herein and of its appellate authority on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice by not furnishing a copy of the enquiry report or complaint on whose basis of which initial order of demolition had been passed.
(3.) In the second round, the writ petitioner has complained that while a fresh hearing was given, a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the sixth respondent moved under the Act of 1962 was not made over to the writ petitioner. This appears from his representation in Bengali at Annexure-- P13 at p.73 of the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner submits that he was denied an effective opportunity of being heard; and that despite the earlier order of the coordinate Bench, all the relevant documents were not handed over to him.;