Calcutta High CourtWPA/443/2024disposed

Iswar Das Kindo v. The Lt.Governor And ORS

2024-08-30Hon'Ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) WPA/443/2024 Iswar Das Kindo Vs The Lieutenant Governor and others Ms. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents September 06, 2024 [SR] Item No. 1 The petitioner in paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition has stated that the land was encroached in the year 1968 and after encroachment the petitioner developed the said land by various plantations and constructed a residential house and has been residing thereat with his family members.

In the affidavit affirming the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner as on 02.01.2024 is aged about 50 years, if the petitioner is aged about 50 years on 02.01.2024, then he was not born in 1968 as such could not have encroached the land in question. It was also not possible for the petitioner to develop the encroached land as stated in paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court refer to by the petitioner in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition is of the year of 1995.

It is also stated by the petitioner in paragraph No. 4 of the said writ petition that pursuant to said judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government took a policy decision to allot 1 hectares of land in the de-reserved block of forest in lieu of encroached forest land where the encroachment has taken place prior to 31.12.1978. If the petitioner is aged about 50 years as on 02.01.2024, the petitioner was born sometime in the year 1974. As as on 31.12.1978 the petitioner was, therefore, of the age 4-5 years. The

petitioner, therefore, could not have encroached a forest land prior to 31.12.1978 at the age of 4 or 5 years.

The license dated 27.05.2002 annexed at page 30 to the writ petition being annexure P-1 thereto is in the name of the petitioner and as such on a plain reading of such document, it is apparent that the same was issued to the to the petitioner considering him to be an encroacher prior to 31.12.1978. The notice dated 02.05.2003 which is annexed at page 14 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition is also issued in the name of the petitioner considering the petitioner to be an encroacher prior to 31.12.1978.

Therefore, it can be said no one else than the petitioner has been considered as the encroacher prior to 31.12.1978 going by the documents annexed to the writ petition. There is as such glaring inconsistency apparent on the face of the record in respect of the petitioner claim and the relief sought for on the basis thereof. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from claiming any right on the basis of the two notices dated 27.05.2002 and 02.05.2003, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to in law.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)