← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPA(P)/138/2025dismissed

Shri Shri Radha Gobinda Jew Temple And ANR. v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

2025-04-24The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam,Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)2 pages

Ct. No.1 D/L 12 RP/SM 24.04.2025 WPA(P) 138 of 2025 SHRI SHRI RADHA GOBINDA JEW TEMPLE AND ANR.

VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Pankaj Halder, Adv.

Mr. Subhas Basu, Adv.

Mr. Sanatan Panja, Adv.

Mr. Tapas Manna, Adv.

...For the Petitioner Mr. Jahar Lal De, A.G.P.

Mr. Sourav Chowdhury, Adv.

...For the State-Respondent

1. Affidavit-of-Service filed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is taken on record.

2. The petitioner has filed this public interest litigation alleging that a temple property is being unauthorisedly encroached. Report has been submitted by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Diamond Harbour Health District, dated 8th April, 2025, from which it is seen that construction work for ten bedded primary health centre at Sadashibpur under Mandirbazar Block of South 24-Parganas, is in progress under the implementing agency Zilla Parishad in pursuance of the AAFS of the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal by Memo dated 5th February, 2025. Further the report states that the land for construction of the primary health centre was identified, duly certified to be vested to the State and declared to be fit for construction from the end of the BL&LRO, Mandirbazar Block of

South 24-Parganas. The construction work has commenced subsequently, the details of the demarcated land has also been mentioned in the written instruction. Further, the written instruction states that the construction work undertaken by the Zilla Parishad is confined within the area demarcated for construction of primary health centre and there is no encroachment on the temple property as alleged as per the land records register with the BL&LRO Mandirbazar Block of South 24-Parganas. Sketch map of the area is also enclosed with the report.

3. Thus, we find that the apprehension of the petitioner has no basis at all and the writ petition is dismissed. (T.S. Sivagnanam) Chief Justice [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]