MAT/798/2026 of SUKHENDU NATH BHATTACHARYA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 10 September 2026

1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 3, 2025, passed in WPA 24753 of 2016. By the order impugned the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition for the following reasons:-

a) Admittedly, the registration granted to the appellant under the provisions of Section 4 of the SARAIS Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) was revoked on the basis of a complaint from the local residents alleging that the appellant was using the building/hotel for immoral purposes.

b) The complaint led to registration of a criminal case being Falta P.S. Case No.24 of 2009 dated February 14, 2009, under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

c) The trial was going on before the jurisdictional court.

d) A case under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated against the appellant.

e) An opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant by the District Magistrate but, by an order dated July 21, 2016 the District Magistrate refused to revoke the order cancelling the licence. Such order did not suffer from either any perversity or infirmity.

f) Direction upon the authority to open the padlock could not be permitted as a portion of the land over which the hotel was standing, had vested in the State and an order of eviction had been passed by the Collector which was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.

g) A writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority was pending and there was no demarcation of the vested portion of the land in question.

2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the order of His Lordship suffers from various irregularities. Even if the writ petition challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner fails, entitlement to use the portion of the building standing on the appellants’ land could not be prohibited. Part of the land was vested and part of the land belongs to the appellant.

3. Under such circumstances, the portion of the hotel which stood on the land belonging to the appellant and his mother must be permitted to be used for some other purpose and not as a hotel. Such order would not cause prejudice either to the authorities or to the criminal trial. He further submits that the order of the Collector would indicate that a demarcation had been directed. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge that unless the land vested to the government was demarcated, the appellant could not be allowed to use a part of the construction, was contrary to the records. On the basis of such misplaced findings, the prayer for a direction upon the authorities to open the padlock was refused. Further, the specific observation of His Lordship that the hotel was sealed by the police and, as such, pending the criminal trial the padlock could not be opened, thereby, permitting use of the construction was also erroneous.

4. According to Mr. Banerjee, the police authorities did not seal the hotel but, the hotel was sealed by the Executive Magistrate and that too sometime in 2015.

5. Under such circumstances, as the operation of the hotel was permitted earlier, that is, between registration of the criminal case in 2009 and the date of the first order revoking the SARAIS licence, there was no impediment in allowing the property to be used for any other purpose than a hotel.

6. The State respondents have filed a short report which indicates that investigation in respect of Falta P.S. Case No.24 of 2009 dated February 14, 2009 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 had ended with the filing of a charge-sheet and the trial is proceeding before the concerned Additional Chief Jurisdictional Magistrate. The report further reveals that another case vide Falta P.S. Case No.360 of 2015 dated June 10 of 2015 under Sections 341/186/506/34 of the

Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the SARAIS Act was also registered. The complaint was lodged by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Diamond Harbour against the appellant and three other accused persons. The investigation resulted in filing of a charge- sheet vide Falta P.S. CS No.459 of 2015 dated July 31, 2015 under Sections 341/186/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the SARAIS Act. The trial is pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate and is at the stage of evidence.

7. Heard the parties.

8. The appellant was operating a hotel at Falta in the District of South 24 Parganas on the basis of a SARAIS licence granted by the District Magistrate dated August 29, 2000 under Section 4 of the said Act. The same was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate by an order dated June 23, 2015. Challenging the said order and orders passed under Sections 133 and 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Executive Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, WP 16644 (W) of 2015 was filed. The writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court and His Lordship refused to interfere with the orders passed under Sections 133 and 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated June 23, 2015 was set aside and the District Magistrate was directed to decide the issue afresh, upon granting the appellant an opportunity of being heard. The appellant was restrained from operating the hotel until a favourable order was passed by the appropriate authority.

Pursuant to the direction of His Lordship, a show cause notice was issued on August 12, 2015 by the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice. By an order dated July 21, 2016, the District Magistrate refused to revoke the order of cancellation of the licence and provided reasons therefor. It was found that seven rooms of the hotel ‘River View’ had been sealed as per the order dated June 19, 2015, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Diamond Harbour in a proceeding being MF 1610 of 2015 in exercise of power under Clause B of Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. In view of the complaints received from the general public of the locality that the hotel was involved in unlawful activities and pendency of the trial before the learned ACJM, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas, the order of cancellation of the SARAIS licence was not revoked by the District Magistrate after hearing the appellant. He was permitted to take away his car which was found parked at the time of shutting of the hotel. The appellant approached the Sub-Divisional Officer with a prayer for opening up the rooms in order to enable repairing of the same and also to enable his parents to stay in two rooms which they had earlier been using as their residence. The appellant alleged that his belongings had been looted and left unattended. The order of the District Magistrate refusing to revoke the order of cancellation of SARAIS licence as also the inaction on the part of the authorities in opening the padlock of the hotel to enable the appellant to use the premises for residence of his parents and for repair, were under challenge in the writ petition being WPA 24753 of 2016, from which this appeal arises.

10. We have discussed the findings of the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted case that the hotel had been constructed partly on vested land. The specific finding of the Collector in the proceeding under the 1962 Act was that the construction of the appellant was on Plot Nos.844 and 845 of Mouza - Basulat. Plot No.844 comprised of 5 decimals. Over 2.5 decimals of vested land, the hotel had been constructed. Plot No.845 comprised of 8 decimals, out of which 2 decimals of vested land had been used for the construction of the hotel. It was found that the appellant did not have any valid document to use vested land. Under such circumstances, the appellant was declared to be an unauthorized occupant in respect of the government land and he was directed to demolish the structures and other property lying over 2.5 decimals in Plot No.845 and over 2 decimals in Plot No.845. Such order was not complied with, but appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. From the appeal, a writ petition was preferred and the same is pending. The appellant has challenged the order of eviction on various grounds. Thus, the constructions remain.

11. Until and unless the order of eviction reaches its finality and the encroachment over the government land is removed, it will not be proper for us to direct the padlocks of the hotel to be removed and to permit the appellant to use the building. Moreover, it is important to note that two criminal trials are pending with regard to the immoral trafficking and other illegal activities which were being carried on from the hotel premises.

12. Allegation against the appellant was forceful entry into the sealed premises and obstructions posed to the government officials during discharge of their official duty. The second criminal case was registered on these allegations. Thus, the conduct of the appellant is also the subject matter of a criminal case. Although, there was a direction by the Collector upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to demarcate the encroached portion, we do not find any document to show that the construction on the portion of the land belonging to the appellant, had actually been demarcated. A single building has been constructed over the partly vested land and partly owned land. It is the specific contention of the appellant in the writ petition challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner that, the land had not been properly demarcated and without such demarcation, the order of eviction and demolition could not be passed.

13. In any event, the fate of the construction is yet to be decided in view of the challenge thrown to the order passed by the authorities. Unless these issues are decided and the demolition of the structures actually takes place, the authorities cannot be directed to break open the padlock of the hotel. We also find from some records that the police had sealed the hotel, pursuant to certain complaints and raids held.

14. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. We do not find any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge.

15. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

16. This order is restricted to the prayers made in the writ petition. The other proceedings may continue on their own merits.

17. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

(Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)