Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Sterling Finvest Private Limited vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 July, 2025
Item No.6&7
11.07.2025
Court. No. 19
GB
W.P.A. 16288 of 2023
With
W.P.A. 21159 of 2023
M/s. Sterling Finvest Private Limited
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Partha Chakraborty,
Mr. Rishab Dutta Gupta,
Ms. Debanjali Patra
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Srinath Singha Roy
... for the State
(in WPA 16288 of 2023).
Mr. Santanu Mitra,
Ms. Kalpita Paul
... for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6
(in WPA 16288 of 2023).
Mr. Santanu Mitra,
Ms. Rama Halder
… for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6
(in WPA 21159 of 2023)
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Tirthankar Dey,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
… for the B.M.C.
Mr. Chayan Gupta,
Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui
… for the WBHIDCO.
In Re: WPA 21159 of 2023
1. The writ petitioner and the respondent authorities are
represented by their learned advocates.
2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner
has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs
against the respondent authorities for not giving the
effect of notification dated 31.03.2006 of the East
Kolkata Wetlands (Conversion and Management) Act,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in
2
short), which was came into effect retrospectively on
and from 16.11.2005.
3. In course of his submission Mr. Chakraborty, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at
the very outset draws attention of this Court to page
nos.39 to 119, being copies of five registered deed of
conveyance as have been executed in favour of the
present writ petitioner.
4. It is argued by Mr. Chakraborty that from the
schedules of the said registered deeds of conveyance it
would reveal that the character of the purchased lands
are either ‘Sali’ or ‘Danga’.
5. It is submitted further that from page no.200 of the
instant writ petition it would reveal that the said
properties were mutated in the name of the writ
petitioner in connection with L.R. Plot Nos.520, 521,
554 and 674 and to that effect the jurisdictional BL &
LRO issued a certificate of mutation.
6. It is submitted further that from page no.225 of the
instant writ petition it would reveal that on the basis
of such mutation the relevant record of right in
respect of the L.R. Plot Nos.520, 521, 554 and 674
have been recorded in the name of the writ petitioner
and the copy of the said LR RoR clearly indicates that
the said properties are either ‘Danga’ or ‘Sali’.
7. At this juncture, Mr. Chakraborty draws attention of
this Court to page no.226 onwards being the relevant
gazette notification of the said Act.
3
8. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that in the
schedule of the said Act, the purchased property as
mentioned hereinabove has been included wrongly,
since the said lands as purchased by the writ
petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be
considered as a wetland and/or water body.
9. It is submitted that despite submission of
representation by the writ petitioner the respondent
authorities did nothing and practically sat tight over
the matter. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Chakrabory
that it is a fit case for granting the reliefs as prayed for
by the writ petitioner.
10. Per contra, Mr. Mitra, learned advocate duly assisted
by Ms. Kalpita Paul, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent authorities draws attention
of this Court to the report as filed in connection with
WPA 16288 of 2023. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that
he is relying the said report in connection with the
instant writ petition being WPA 21159 of 2023.
11. In course of his submission Mr. Mitra draws attention
of this Court to various pages of the instant writ
report, more specifically from page nos.9 to 13. It is
submitted by Mr. Mitra that from the report as
submitted before this Court, the following would
reveal:-
(a) In the year 1992, in the case of People United
in Better Living in Calcutta (PUBLIC) &
Another versus The State of West
4Bengal & Others the Hon’ble Court passed
the following direction :
“There shall be an order of
injunction restraining the State-
Respondents from reclaiming any
further wetland. There shall also be an
order of injunction prohibiting the
respondents from granting any
permission to any person whatsoever
for the purpose of changing the use of
the land from agricultural to residential
or commercial in the area as indicated
in the map annexed to the petition and
marked with letter ‘C’. The State-
Respondents are further directed to
maintain the nature and character of
the wetlands in their present form and
to stop all encroachment of the wetland
area as indicated in the map annexed to
the petition and marked with letter ‘C’.
The State-Respondents are further
directed to take steps so as to stop
private alienation and, if required, by
extending the statutory provisions in
regard thereto.”
(b) In the Ramsar Convention wherein India is a
signatory, an inter-governmental treaty on
global environment was executed.
(c) Pursuant to the said treaty and the
aforementioned judgment in the case of
(PUBLIC), the Government of West Bengal
constituted a High Level Management
Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the
5
Government of West Bengal, which was
entrusted for demarcation of the limits of East
Kolkata Wetland, preparation of maintenance
of a map and a land schedule showing the
boundaries of the wetland area.
(d) On 31.03.2006 the Government of West Bengal
enacted the said Act along with the Schedule-I
containing the list of full and part of Mouzas
which come under the purview of the said Act.
(e) Plot Nos.520, 521, 554 and 674 of Mouza –
Kulberia have been depicted in Schedule-I of
the said Act as well as in the Schedule-II of the
said Act which is a map of the relevant mouzas
of the Schedule-I.
(f) In the Schedule-I of the said Act there are four
types of land:-
(i) Substantially water body oriented
area
(ii) Agricultural area
(iii) Productive Farming area
(iv) Urban/Rural Settlement area
(g) The said Act specifically provides that the
provisions of the said Act would be applicable
on all aforementioned land classification.
(h) The writ petitioner purchased the land in the
year 2008 whereas the said Act came into effect
6on 16.11.2005. Therefore, such purchase was
made after enactment of the said Act.
(i) As per the said judgment in the case of
(PUBLIC) as passed by this High Court in
1992, change of character of the land is
prohibited.
12. Placing reliance upon the aforementioned points of
the said report, it is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the
writ petitioner cannot be permitted to carry on his
commercial activity on such wetland and no materials
could be placed before this Court that any of the
provisions of the said Act is ultra vires.
13. Mr. Mitra, thus, submits that it is a fit case for
dismissal of the instant writ petition.
14. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed
before this Court and after hearing the learned
advocates for the contending parties, this Court has
got no iota of doubt that on behalf of the respondent
authorities sufficient materials have been placed
before this Court that by a gazette notification dated
31.03.2006 the said Act of 2006 was brought into
effect retrospectively on and from 16.11.2005.
15. Sufficient materials have been placed before this
Court that the relevant plots of land over which the
writ petitioner claims his ownership comes under the
Mouza – Kulberia which has been included in
Schedule-I of the said Act. Sufficient materials have
also been placed before this Court that the writ
7
petitioner purchased the said properties, that is, the
said plots of land much after the enactment of the said
land. The report as submitted by the respondent
authorities clearly indicates that any change of
character of land is equally prohibited in respect of the
schedule mentioned properties of the said Act.
16. It further appears before this Court that on behalf of
the writ petitioner no material could be placed at the
time of hearing as to why this Court will pass an order
for exclusion of the purchased lands of the writ
petitioner from the schedule of the said Act especially
when no materials could be placed on behalf of the
writ petitioner challenging the vires of the Act.
17. In course of his argument Mr. Chakraborty places his
reliance upon the reported decision of Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited & Another versus
EMTA Coal Limited reported in (2022) 2
Supreme Court Cases 1.
18. In considered view of this Court, in the said reported
decision of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
(supra) the Hon’ble Court has occasioned to revisit the
doctrine of legitimate expectation. It has been held
that such doctrine has got no effect when the authority
takes a decision on a public interest.
19. In considered view of this Court the reported decision
of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (supra) is
quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances
of the instant case in view of the fact that in the
8
instant writ petition the writ petitioner has miserably
failed to place any material that the legitimate
expectation of the writ petitioner is vitiated on
account of arbitrary action of the respondent
authorities.
20. With the aforementioned observation the instant writ
petition is dismissed.
21. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
In Re: WPA 16288 of 2023
22. Since in WPA 16288 of 2023 the writ petitioner has
approached before this Court with similar such relief,
the said writ petition being WPA 16288 of 2023 is also
dismissed in the light of the observation made
hereinabove.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)