Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) Supplementary affidavit has been filed in terms of my earlier order dated April 10, 2019 in Court today and the same is taken on record.
(2.) The writ petition has been presented before this Court where affidavits have been completed so far as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Ghatal Municipality) and respondent No. 2 (Paschim Medinipore Zilla Parishad) are concerned. Affidavits in reply have been filed to such affidavits in opposition. From the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit it appears that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are alleging that they have been given lease of the same land in respect of which the writ petitioner has also been granted a lease by the self-same Zilla Parishad. The writ petitioner further alleges that a building plan has been sanctioned in favour of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 by the respondent No. 4-Municipality. The respondent No. 4-Municipality has filed an affidavit in opposition affirmed by one Sk. Rakesh, a staff of the concerned Municipality who has been duly authorised by the respondent No. 5 to affirm the affidavit on behalf of the said Municipality. In the said affidavit in opposition, the respondent No. 4, Ghatal Municipality has categorically asserted at paragraph 4b that the respondent No. 8 has taken a lease of the concerned land from the Zilla Parishad and was allowed holding number 59/4/1 and obtained a sanctioned building plan from the respondent No. 4. It has also alleged that the Zilla Parishad has itself inspected the land in question and has found that that the land being used by the respondent No. 9 is not part of the leasehold of the writ petitioner. These allegations have been affirmed as being true to the knowledge of the said staff, Sk. Rakesh. More curiously the Zilla Parishad has also affirmed an affidavit in opposition through its Secretary and has categorically stated at paragraph 7 of the same that the Zilla Parishad denies that any lease was granted either to the respondent No. 8 or the respondent No. 9 by the Zilla Parishad. Since the respondent No. 4 alleges that the lessor is the respondent No. 2, naturally the affidavit in opposition of the respondent No. 2 carries more weight. Not only that when I asked the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4 what was the source of the assertion made in the affidavit in opposition of the respondent No. 4 at paragraph 4b, learned advocate referred to an unsigned written instructions and could not give the source of the information on the basis of which the allegations were made as to who had given the respondent No. 8 or respondent No. 9 the authority to use the said land. Once the Zilla Parishad has denied that it has granted a lease to the respondent No. 9, naturally in view of the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 it is clear that the respondent No. 8 has no authority to keep or exploit the said land. If the respondent No. 4 had produced the application form on which the sanction was granted, naturally it would have disclosed the copy of the deed of lease if any, but the respondent No. 4 has chosen not to disclose such form. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent No. 8 has no authority to sustain the sanction of the building plan granted to him or defend it in view of the fact that both the lessor and the admitted lessee of the property alleged that the said person could not have obtained any right over the said property during the subsistence of the lease in favour of the writ petitioner. Since the respondent No. 4 has not considered this aspect of the matter but instead has alleged contrary to the materials on record that the respondent No. 8 is a lessee of the Zilla Parishad, I am afraid that the sanction of the building plan granted to the respondent No. 8 cannot be sustained. The respondent No. 8 has not come forward to file any affidavit in opposition nor is represented today. Accordingly, the sanction of the building plan in favour of the respondent No. 8 is quashed. If the writ petitioner contends that the respondent No. 8 is still in possession of any part of the said property as appears from page 8 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, the writ petitioner shall have its remedy in civil law for removal of such encroachment.
(3.) So far as the respondent No. 9 is concerned, despite my seeking desperately any description of the respondent No. 9 and how he is involved in the present writ petition, I am afraid that the draftsman concerned seems to have added the name of the respondent No. 9 on a whim since nothing has been mentioned as to how he is at all linked to the property. In fact, had the respondent No. 4 not filed its affidavit in opposition, I would not have known that the respondent No. 9 is at all in possession of any part of the said property. The respondent No. 9 has also not appeared and has not filed any affidavit in opposition. I am told that a complaint had been made of forgery by the Zilla Parishad as against the respondent No. 8 and the same has also been recorded in another pleading in another writ petition which has already been disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This order shall not in any way prejudice or affect the course of the criminal case which has been initiated by the Zilla Parishad.;