Judgment :- D.K. SETH, J. (1.) These two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. Therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. The appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. respectively. 1. In course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. At the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. Since the Court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ petitions be called for and be decided along with the appeals. 1.2. Accordingly, the records of the respective writ petitions were called for. The writ petitions and the appeals were heard on merit. The respective Counsel for the parties had argued their respective cases extensively for a number of days. In the circumstances we propose to dispose of the appeal and the writ petitions together as hereafter. The Writ Petitions : The Prayers : the Interim Orders : The Appeals : (2.) The respondents as respective writ petitioners filed two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 352 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 367 of 2005. In the Writ Petition No. 352 of 2005, the following prayers were made : "(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents and/or each one of them to certify and transmit all records pertaining to the conversion of the nature of use of the said premises. In the Writ Petition No. 352 of 2005, the following prayers were made : "(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents and/or each one of them to certify and transmit all records pertaining to the conversion of the nature of use of the said premises. Particulars whereof are pleaded in this petition as also those pertaining to the institution of any complaint FIR with Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station and /or any other police station against the petitioners or either of them so that conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing the same upon consideration thereof; (c) A writ of and/or in she nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and/or each one of them- (i) quashing and/or setting aside any criminal complaint and/or FIR that has been lodged against the petitioners or either of them in respect of the properties being the said 16.6252 acres of land lying and situate at R.S.Dag No.321/615 in Mouza Kochpukur, 24-Parganas South, belonging to the proforma respondents, by the respondent No. 3 or any other respondents with Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station and/or any other police station; (ii) to issue sanction letter specifically confirming/directing/recording the conversion of nature of use of the said premises being the said 16.6252 acres of land lying and situate at R. S. Dag No. 321/615 in Mouza Kochpukur, 24-Parganas South so that dwelling units and other construction can be made at the said premises; (iii) to issue appropriate letter slating that the petitioners do not require any other sanction letter for making any construction at the premises; (iv) to forward and furnish a copy of the criminal compliant FIR as lodged by the respondent No. 3 and/or any other respondent(s) in Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station against the petitioners particularly the petitioner No.1 in respect of the said premises, to the petitioners; (d) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the respondents, and/or each one of them-(i) from interfering with/or hampering in any manner whatsoever the construction process at the said premises; (ii) from arresting and/or apprehending the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in any manner whatsoever; (iii) from confiscating the properties of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever; (iv) from insisting upon production of any conversion certificate in respect of the said premises; (v) from acting and/or any further acting in pursuance of the criminal complaint and/or FIR instituted by the respondent No. 3 and/or any other respondents in Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station or any other police station against the petitioners in connection with the said premises; (e) Rule NISI in terms of the above prayers: (f) Rule NISI be made absolute if no cause and/or insufficient cause is shown; (g) An order of mandatory injunction be passed commanding the respondents, their men, agents, servants, subordinates, successor-in-office, successor-in-interest and/or each one of them thereby directing- (i) to quash and/or set aside any criminal complaint and/or FIR that has been lodged against the petitioners or either of them in respect of the properties being the said 16.6252 acres of land lying and situate at R. S. Dag No. 321/615 in Mouza Kochpukur, 24-Parganas South, belonging to the proforma respondents, by the respondent No.3 or any other respondents with Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station and/or any other police station; (ii) to issue sanction letter specifically confirming/directing/recording the conversion of nature of use of the said premises being the said 16.6252 acres of land lying and situate at R. S. Dag No. 321/615 in Mouza Kochpukur, 24-Parganas South, so that dwelling units and other construction can be made at the said premises; (iii) to issue appropriate letter stating that the petitioners do not require another sanction letter for making any construction at the premises; (iv) to forward and furnish a copy of the criminal complaint FIR as lodged by the respondent No. 3 and/or any other respondent(s) in Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station against the petitioners particularly the petitioner No.1 in respect of the said premises, to the petitioners; (h) An order of injunction do issue restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants, subordinates, successor-in-office, successor-in-interest and/ or each one of them -(i) from interfering with or hampering in any manner whatsoever the construction process at the said premises; (ii) from arresting and/or apprehending the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in any manner whensoever; (iii) from confiscating the properties of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever; (iv) from insisting upon production of any conversion certificate in respect of the said premises; (v) from acting and/or any further acting in pursuance of the criminal complaint and/or FIR instituted by the respondent No. 3 and/or any other respondents in Calcutta Leather Complex Police Station or any other police station against the petitioners in connection with the said premises; (i) Ad interim orders in terms of the above prayers; (j) Costs of and incidental so this application be paid by the respondents; (k) Such further and/or other orders be passed, directions and/or directions be given as to this Honble Court may deem fit and proper." 1. Identical prayers were made in the other writ petition. 2. Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. moved Writ Petition No.367/2005 on 25th February, 2005. In the said writ petition ad interim order was passed restraining the Gram Panchayat from taking any step for revocation of the sanctioned plan and the respondent/appellant from taking any step against the petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition was released by the learned Single Judge on 1st March, 2005. Thereafter, on 4th March, 2005 the application for interim order filed by Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. was moved before the other learned Single Judge, when the same interim order was passed. On 9th March, 2005 Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. moved its writ petition and similar interim order was passed by the other learned Single Judge. On 16th March, 2005, the appellant appeared in both these matters and submitted that the construction shall not be permitted to go on. However, no order modifying the interim order was passed. On the other hand the interim order was continued and directions were given for filing affidavits. 3. Two appeals were taken against the interim order passed respectively in the said two writ petitions. These two appeals were numbered as A.P.O.T. No. 252 of 2005 [Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd.) and A.P.O.T. No. 250 of 2005 (Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd.). Ultimately these two appeals were assigned to this Bench. This is how the matters have come up before this Court. (3.) Extreme erudite arguments were made by the respective Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Ultimately these two appeals were assigned to this Bench. This is how the matters have come up before this Court. (3.) Extreme erudite arguments were made by the respective Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Various points were raised both on the question of facts as well as on the questions of law requiring an answer/ determination of those which are otherwise very relevant and important for both the parties involving an interest of the people living in Kolkata at large. Before we shift to the respective arguments we may briefly refer to the facts relevant for the purpose of this case. 1. It was alleged that by transfer or otherwise the petitioner, Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd., became owner of or entitled to make construction on part of the disputed plot being L.R. Plot No, 321/615 Mouza Kochpukur formerly R.S. Plot No. 773 of Mouza Dhapamanpur. However, neither any deed of purchase nor of assignment nor of agreement had since been disclosed. On 25th September, 2001 the Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal worked out the list of plots being part of the respective Mouza falling in the East Kolkata Wetland Area. A part measuring about 59.64 acres of Dhapamanpur, since amalgamated with Mouza Kochpukur, was shown within the wetland area. In the mutations certificate issued on 1st October, 2001, the character of the land shown was "beel maach chas" On 6th May, 2003, the petitioner submitted applications for conversion of the land and paid the requisite fees for conversion. These were recorded as conversion case No. 2/2002-03 to 6/2002-03 and 9/2002-03 to 13/2002-03. These applications, however, were rejected. 2. The fact of rejection of the prayer for conversion had come to the knowledge of the Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. on the basis of the disclosure made by the Collector in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Government. Between 18th March, 2004 and 20th July, 2004 Sanjeevani Project (P) Ltd. entered into eight agreements of development with the owners of some other parts of the same land. On 7th September, 2004 the building plan was sanctioned by the Bamunghata Gram Panchayat. On 17th September, 2004 the construction started on the basis of the sanctioned building plan. On 15th February, 2005 FIR was lodged with the local police station. On 7th September, 2004 the building plan was sanctioned by the Bamunghata Gram Panchayat. On 17th September, 2004 the construction started on the basis of the sanctioned building plan. On 15th February, 2005 FIR was lodged with the local police station. On behalf of the Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd., the learned Advocate asked the police officer to supply a copy of the FIR. On 22nd February, 2005 the police arrested three labourers and one security officer from the site. They, however, were released on bail on 22nd February, 2005. On 22nd February, 2005 a spot enquiry was made. On 22nd February, 2005 the Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned asked Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. to stop work of illegal construction since there was no valid conversion order from the department under section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms (WBLR) Act, 1955 and that the land was classified as "beel maach chas". 3. In the circumstances the Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. had moved the writ petition (W.P. No. 367 of 2005) on 25th February, 2005. An ad interim order was granted thereon on the same date. After the matter was released by the learned Single Judge on 1st March, 2005, same interim order was passed on the said application on 4th March, 2005 by the other learned Single Judge when the same was then moved. Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. on similar facts moved its writ petition on 9th March seeking identical reliefs and similar interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge. On the prayer of the Government respondent, after its appearance, for stopping construction the interim order was not modified but was continued with the direction for filing affidavits. 4.The present two appeals taken against the interim orders have now since been assigned to this Bench upon release on 5th May, 2005 by the regular Bench. This Bench on 19th August, 2005 granted the interim order and directed the District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DL and LRO) to inspect the site and submit a report. The DL LRO after his inspection submitted a report with photographs. (4.) The main question that has been sought to be put forth by Mr. This Bench on 19th August, 2005 granted the interim order and directed the District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DL and LRO) to inspect the site and submit a report. The DL LRO after his inspection submitted a report with photographs. (4.) The main question that has been sought to be put forth by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd., was that section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (WBLR Act) has no manner of application in the present case. He had also argued that the land, being land falling on the north of the canal of Mouza Dhapamanpur, was not included within the wetland listed by the department in terms of the earlier decision of the High Court in a public interest litigation moved by People United for Better Living in Calcutta (Public), a public spirited body. By reason of the impact of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 the owners are raiyat with heritable and transferable right in respect of the land held by them within the ceiling. Admittedly the owners were holding the land within the ceiling and as such by reason of the definition of land defined in section 2(7) as amended by the 1981 Act, there was no restriction on the use of the land and as such no conversion was necessary. According to Mr. Mukherjee conversion would be required in a case where a raiyat is allowed to retain land in excess of the ceiling. No restriction can be imposed in respect of the land held by a raiyat within the ceiling. However, such right of the raiyat is subject to restrictions and limitations prescribed under the law. 1. The dispute that has been raised by the State Government is threefold. First that the land is part of the East Kolkata Wetland; second that any conversion or construction on such wetland is prohibited by this Honble High Court in Public vs. State, 1993 (2) CLJ 105 : AIR 1993 Cal 215 , and third that conversion though applied for was not granted under section 4C. It may be noted that Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. had applied for conversion on 8th October, 2002. This was rejected on 3rd March, 2005 after the writ petition was filed. Mr. It may be noted that Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. had applied for conversion on 8th October, 2002. This was rejected on 3rd March, 2005 after the writ petition was filed. Mr. Mukherjee pointed out that the decision in Public, 1993 (2) CLJ 105 (supra) and contended that the list mentioned in paragraph 23 of the said judgment prohibited "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 the 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 the letter C." 2. In this background, Mr. Mukherjee contended further that the Plot No. 321/615 though erroneously continued to be recorded as "beel maach chas" has for decades been a high land. Irrespective of such change of the nature of land a tank even though used for agricultural purpose is a non-agricultural plot. He relied on the decision in Fakir Chandra Chakravarty vs. Pandit Sri Lakshmi Kant Jha and Ors., 75 CWN 952 (P.N. Mookerjee and A.K. Mookerjee, JJ.) and Benoy Kumar Saha and Ors. vs. Revenue Officer, Malda, Gazole Camp. and Ors., 76 CWN 367 (R.N. Dutt, J.). The records-of-rights of R.S. Plot No. 321/615 annexed to A/R in the Trial Court indicates the plot to be "beel maach chas" (tank fishery) attested on July 25, 1988 and shows the plot to be in Mouza Kochpukur at least from 1988 (Pages 263 and 264 of the Compilation). It is not a case of the State that the petitioners are converting an agricultural plot to some other kind of plot, surreptitiously or otherwise in violation of the legal provisions. The only ground taken for refusal to permit conversion, despite accepting and receiving the conversion fees, is that the plot lies within wetland, which factually will appear not to be so. 3. The only ground taken for refusal to permit conversion, despite accepting and receiving the conversion fees, is that the plot lies within wetland, which factually will appear not to be so. 3. He contended further that the State in its affidavit-in-opposition has disclosed that the Environment Department, Government of West Bengal forwarded to the Director of Land Records and Survey and Joint Land Reforms Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, a list of Mouza falling within wetlands as per Annexure "C" by letter dated 18th September, 2000 and has referred to and relied thereupon (Pages 199-201 of the Compilation). The above report was prepared after a meeting between the Secretary, Environment Department and the Director, Land Records and Survey and with a view to indicating and identifying the Mouzas involved under Annexure "C" to the writ petition filed by the Public. The List of Mouzas annexed to the said letter dated 18th September, 2000 Mouza Kochpukur does not find any reference. No plot in Mouza Kochpukur is alleged to be covered by Annexure "C". The plots in question were never within South Bidhannagar P.S. and were never transferred from Kochpukur Mouza. On the contrary on the footnote (Page 200 of the Compilation) it is clearly stated that "In addition the area to the North of Eastern Metropolitan Canal of Mouza Dhapamanpur lies outside the designated wetland area boundary". There can be no doubt or dispute about the location of Plot No. 321/ 615; it is to the North of Krishnapur Canal. According to him, by Notification dated 30th July, 1975, a part of Mouza Dhapamanpur was transferred from P.S. Bhangore to Salt Lake P.S. with the remarks : "Excluding the portions (which are on the North of the Krishnapur Canal) comprised in Plot Nos. 771 to 775." 4. The State in paragraphs 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) of its affidavit-in-opposition (Page 188 of me Compilation) has made an attempt to confuse the issue. Annexure "C" to the petition in Public vs. State (supra) has been clarified officially by the Environment Department and communicated to the Director of Land Records and Survey (Page 199 of the Compilation). The State in paragraphs 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) of its affidavit-in-opposition (Page 188 of me Compilation) has made an attempt to confuse the issue. Annexure "C" to the petition in Public vs. State (supra) has been clarified officially by the Environment Department and communicated to the Director of Land Records and Survey (Page 199 of the Compilation). There is no ambiguity either in the survey undertaken or in the list of wetland Mouzas with the footnote as communicated identifying the Mouzas covered by Annexure "C" of the petition in Public vs. State (supra), which is also confirmed and corroborated by the Wetland Management Plan. 5. The land owners of the plot involved, after purchase applied for conversion in October, 2002 by way of abundant caution and after statutory enquiries, the S.D.L. and L.R.O. on 28th July, 2003 (Pages 260-262 of the Compilation) decided to grant conversion by the authorities and passed the challans (Page 76 of the Compilation) and assessed the conversion fees. At the same time, the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) in his letter dated 4th November, 2004 addressed to A.D.M. and DL and LRO wrote that it appears that the said persons have applied for conversion of their lands and had even deposited the requisite fees for conversion in our office, but we have not been able to issue them the permission for conversion for various reasons, the most important one being the deliberations at the State Level relating to the lands falling in the East Kolkata Wetland (EKW). It appears that the lands of the applicant fall under the added area of East Kolkata Wetland (Page 113 of the Compilation). The significance of the expression "the added area" used by the D.M. in his letter dated 4th November, 2004 will appear from the Wetland Management Plan viz; the break up of the sectorwise land use of the EKW area as found from the analysis of the satellite supported by actual ground survey is given at page 11 of the Management Plan in which at page 17 thereof Mouza Kochpukur is shown as an Added Mouza. Dag No. 312/615 (Old R.S. Dag No. 773) is shown at page 147 of die Wetland Management Plan in its entirety as Urban Rural Settlement as a part of new addition. Dag No. 312/615 (Old R.S. Dag No. 773) is shown at page 147 of die Wetland Management Plan in its entirety as Urban Rural Settlement as a part of new addition. At page 147 of the Wetland Management Plan, there are three columns namely (i) agricultural area, (ii) water body oriented, area and (iii) Urban Rural Settlement. Dag No. 773 or 312/ 615 is shown to be falling only under Urban Rural Settlement; no part thereof falls under any of the two other columns. 6. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is specifically alleged that conversion of part of plot No. 312/615 has already been allowed for setting up of Aquatica. The State has left this statement uncontroverted (Para 4 of the A/O of the State at page 190 of the Compilation). The permission for conversion from Sali land to Water Park was granted to Aquatica on 29th May, 2000 (Page 132 of the Compilation).The Aquatica includes Restaurants, Towers, Water Parks and Resorts etc. for commercial purpose. On the other hand, on 2nd December, 2000, at least 4 notifications under section 4 of the LA Act were issued for proposed acquisition of altogether an area of 33.25 acres out of plot No. 321/615 which is the land involved in this writ petition for the purpose of implementation of Rajarhat New Township Project in Mouza Kochpukur (A/R - Annexure "R-3" at pages 265-284 of the Compilation). The proposed acquisition of the major part of the area was withdrawn by notifications dated 7th September, 2004 (A/R - Annexure "R-3" pages 285-287 of the Compilation). Only a portion measuring 1.91 Acres out of plot No. 312/615 was acquired by the Government for constructing the road linking the PWD main road on the North of Krishnapur Canal with the Rajarhat Township for which compensation was paid to four of the Proforma respondents being owners of the relevant portions (Para 25 of affidavit-in-reply at page 245 - Annexure "R-5" and "R-6" at pages 281 to 308 of the Compilation). 7. In view of the facts emerging from the official records and from records annexed by the State, as part of their affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case, no part of the land involved in the writ petition can be justifiably alleged to be a wetland which is the only ground taken for not granting conversion. 7. In view of the facts emerging from the official records and from records annexed by the State, as part of their affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case, no part of the land involved in the writ petition can be justifiably alleged to be a wetland which is the only ground taken for not granting conversion. The petitioners are not inviting this Honble Court to go into any disputed question of fact, merely praying that the materials produced by the State and the action taken by the State may be taken into consideration for upholding the stand of the petitioners. It is not open to the State to take a stand which is unjust, unreasonable, whimsical, arbitrary and contrary to the admitted facts and mala fide for defeating the rights of the petitioners flowing from their admitted ownership. 8. In view of the judgment of the Honble Division Bench in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Krishak Samity vs. State of West Bengal, 1996 (2) CLJ 285 , definition of land sought to be introduced by the WBLR (Amendment) Act of 1981 cannot be treated as continuing to be operative at least after July 26, 1996. It has been held by this Honble Court (Honble Justice N.K. Mitra, as His Lordship then was) that the old unamended definition of land continues to remain operative in view of the judgments in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Krishak Samity (supra) and Prafulla Kumar Maity vs Amal Krishna Mishra and Ors., 1997 (2) CHN 20 . Section 4C has not been enforced by notification under section 1(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the A/O, Page 125 of the Compilation). In the A/O, the State has alleged that the issue has been finally decided by the Division Bench in Vassanti Devi Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 (2) CLJ 123 . The State pleads that section 1(3) applied to the principal Act and it exhausted its force after enforcement of its principal Act. The decision has not reacted finality. Inasmuch as, the SLP has since been admitted by and the matter is now pending before the Honble Supreme Court. 9. The ROR has at best a presumptive value, which is rebuttable. Admittedly and actually the land became high long time ago. There was no tank fishery. The decision has not reacted finality. Inasmuch as, the SLP has since been admitted by and the matter is now pending before the Honble Supreme Court. 9. The ROR has at best a presumptive value, which is rebuttable. Admittedly and actually the land became high long time ago. There was no tank fishery. The fisheries department confirmed it by its letter dated 19th September, 1997 (page 257 of the Compilation). The previous owners had applied for amending the ROR but the State chose to remain inactive. 10. The judgment in the Public (supra) does not appear to have been moved as a PIL or a representative action. Under Rule 12 of the 226 Rules, a writ petition can be moved in a representative capacity. The Public (supra) does not appear to have been moved with such leave. The judgment in the Public (supra) cannot bind the owners of the plots involved in the present writ application as they were not made parties and they had no idea or opportunity of defending themselves or placing their case before this Court. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to move this writ application and have it independently adjudicated by this Honble Court and the Public (supra) cannot stand in the way. In support of this contention, Mr. Mukherjee relied upon the decisions in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 ; Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248 at p. 301 (Para 84) and Ram Janam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 1722 (Para 4). (5.) Mr. Samaraditya Pal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Green Valley Tov/ers (P) Ltd., on the other hand, contended that according to the State the land is recorded in the ROR as "beel maach chas". It is a settled law that the entries in the ROR have only presumptive value. (5.) Mr. Samaraditya Pal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Green Valley Tov/ers (P) Ltd., on the other hand, contended that according to the State the land is recorded in the ROR as "beel maach chas". It is a settled law that the entries in the ROR have only presumptive value. Such presumptive value, in this case, stands rebutted by : (a) the certificate granted by the Pradhan / Panchayat to the effect that currently the land is not fit for maach chas and is being used for agriculture for a long time and there was no objection if converted; (b) the Assistant Director of Fisheries opined that there may not be any objection though the khatian of the land shows "beel maach chas" at the time of mutation; (c) the inspection report pursuant to the Appeal Courts order does not reveal that pisciculture is continuing; (d) it is nobodys case that pisciculture is being carried on. It is the current actual user of the land, which will determine its character even though the current user is not backed by an amendment of the ROR. On this very plot LR 321/615 permission for conversion has been given to Aquatica in 2000 and Aquatica has constructed a huge project involving restaurants, guesthouses, amusement park, conference room etc. Similarly the Government itself has constructed high and big residential accommodation on land almost adjacent to the petitioners lands and constructions have been made on the north of the Canal. The States contention that the application for conversion has been rejected is not correct. It will appear from the letter dated 27th November, 2003 addressed by the D.M. to the Director of Land Records and Surveys that : "Meanwhile, the petitioners application for conversion is kept pending". In the same letter the D.M. referring to the statement of the petitioner records that conversion, for which Rs. 1,50,000/-has been paid on demand, was duly processed and comments : "From the records it appears that they are claiming in respect of Item 4 are correct". (1) The State contends that the area comprised in L.R. Dag No. 321/615 is within the area designated as wetlands as per the judgment in Public AIR 1993 Cal 215 (supra) is wholly mala fide and erroneous. (1) The State contends that the area comprised in L.R. Dag No. 321/615 is within the area designated as wetlands as per the judgment in Public AIR 1993 Cal 215 (supra) is wholly mala fide and erroneous. The Committee set up by the Government for the purpose of identifying the lands falling within the wetlands as per Annexure "C" to the petition in Public (supra) has itself in the letter dated 18th September, 2000 has categorically said that : "In addition, the area to the North of Eastern Metropolitan Canal of Mouza Dhapamanpur lies outside the designated wetland area boundary". It is an admitted position that this area was later amalgamated with Mouza Kochpukur. which also in its entity is outside the wetlands. A series of land acquisition cases and notices under LA Act, 1894 have been issued in respect of different areas of land for "implementation of Rajarhat New Township Project" in L.R. Dag No. 321/615 in Mouza Kochpukur. These notices were issued from November, 2002 onwards. The fact a road under construction to the North of the canal and running through inter alia L.R. Dag no. 321/615 is conclusive evidence that L.R. Dag No. 321/615 is not part of wetlands. This will also be clear from the coloured sketch map (page 37 of affidavit-in-opposition). (2) The State has purported to contend that DL and LRO, South 24-Parganas had issued the No Objection Certificate in favour of Aquatica by mistake. No particulars or records were produced to establish how and why such mistake has occurred. Assuming that there was any mistake and consequently the no objection was illegal, then why no steps have been taken to demolish the project and, restore it to its alleged original position. The State Government cannot be permitted to take any plea of its own default in law to the prejudice of a citizen particularly when even after the realization of mistake or illegality, the State by its words or conduct (including inactivity) permits the persons concerned to proceed with a project and : (a) silently acquiesces in those persons investing several crores of rupees in connection with the setting up of the project, (b) knowing fully that the very nature of the project would mean affection of third party rights i.e. those who buy apartments/plots in the project. (3) The State has also contended that the sanction granted by the Panchayat is illegal. (3) The State has also contended that the sanction granted by the Panchayat is illegal. The combined operation of section 23 read with Rule 23E of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules,1981 is that in normal circumstances Gram Panchayat is to withhold permission until the change of classification order is produced before him. Here by reason of the fact already mentioned in relation to conversion and payment of conversion processing fees, the Gram Panchayat did not consider it to be a proper case for withholding permission. The Gram Panchayat sanction was given on 7th September, 2004 whereas the conversion fees processing charge was paid on 27th July, 2003. The Gram Panchayat instead of raising any objection permitted the construction to proceed. By reason of section 4(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 every Gram Panchayat shall be a body corporate having its perpetual succession and a common seal and shall, by its corporate name sue and to be sued. Being a body corporate, it is an independent entity and is not part of the State Government. The Gram Panchayat concerned i.e. Bamoonghata Gram Panchayat is a respondent in this case and has not either by affidavit or otherwise disowned the efficacy of the sanction. (4) Justice of the case requires that the petitioner be permitted to carry on with the building activities and complete the same. The conduct of the State and the Panchayat, as indicated above, raises an equity in favour of the petitioners. The State and the Panchayat have acted as mute spectators vis-a-vis the development and building activities in question and have allowed them to proceed to a substantial length and it will be wholly inequitable to permit them to turn around and contend that such development work is illegal. He relied upon the decision in Municipal Corporation of Bombay vs. Secretary for State for India, 7 Bom. LR 27. (5) There is no question of estoppel against a statute. There is no absolute statutory bar either in section 4B or 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or section 23 of the Panchayat Act. All these provisions are enabling in nature subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein. LR 27. (5) There is no question of estoppel against a statute. There is no absolute statutory bar either in section 4B or 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or section 23 of the Panchayat Act. All these provisions are enabling in nature subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein. It is the duty of the Government and the Panchayat to exercise such enabling power in the facts and circumstances of the case and this Honble Court should give such direction, if necessary. As such police investigation has to be interfered with and a Mandamus should be granted as prayed for. (6) In any event this is a case of gross discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. On the very same plot of land permission has been granted to the project called "Aquatica" which has been fully constructed and is operational. The land has been acquired by the Government for implementation of "Rajarhat New Township Project". The road have been constructed running through inter alia this plot namely L.R. Dag No. 321/615. There is no rational justification and none has been shown to exist by the State. (6.) Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the appellant-State respondent in the writ petition, submitted that this writ petition is for quashing of FIR, issue of sanction letter for conversion of use of land, and writ of Prohibition restraining interference with construction process in respect of the concerned area 10.24 acres (Green Valley Towers) and 20.96 acres (Sanjeevani Projects), all within L.R. Dag No. 321/615 of Mouza - Kochpukur, corresponding to the former R.S. Plot No. 773 of Mouza - Dhapamanpur (A/O, Page-6, sub-para (a) -Green Valley Towers). The nature of land is "beel maach chas" recorded both in R.S. Khatian and L.R. Khatian. According to the petitioner, lands are actually used as agricultural land (writ petition, Para No. 3 of Green Valley Towers and Para No. 1 of Sanjeevani Projects). The application under section 4C of WBLR Act, 1955 is for conversion from "beel maach chas" to bastu. So, it is admitted fact that the concerned land is not homestead land and accordingly no building complex can be constructed unless and until conversion is allowed under section 4C of WBLR Act,1955. (1). On 17th September, 2004 the petitioner obtained sanction of building plan from Pradhan of Bamoonghata Gram Panchayat and commenced construction of building. So, it is admitted fact that the concerned land is not homestead land and accordingly no building complex can be constructed unless and until conversion is allowed under section 4C of WBLR Act,1955. (1). On 17th September, 2004 the petitioner obtained sanction of building plan from Pradhan of Bamoonghata Gram Panchayat and commenced construction of building. On 15th February, 2005, an FIR was lodged by S.D.L. and L.R.O., Baruipur. On 25th February, 2005, writ petition was moved by Green Valley and ad interim order of injunction was obtained restraining interference by the police and restraining Grain Panchayat from revoking the sanctioned building plan. This ad interim order was issued by the learned Single Judge, who released the matter on 1st March, 2005. The matter was assigned to the other learned Single Judge. This interim order was continued by the other learned Single Judge on 4th March, 2005 and has been continued thereafter from time to time. Sanjeevani moved their writ petition before the other learned Single Judge on March 9, 2005 and obtained similar interim order. As a result, criminal proceedings under section 4D of the WBLR Act, 1955 for violation of section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955 could not be continued. Police could not take any action for stopping the illegal work of construction. These two appeals were preferred on 13th April, 2005, but the regular Division Bench released the matter. Ultimately, the appeals were assigned before the present Division Bench and interim order was passed by the Honble Appellate Court on August 19, 2005 restraining the writ petitioners from carrying out any work of construction and directing inspection of the site and report. (2). After February 25, 2005 under cover of the interim order the writ petitioners have carried out the work of construction. The stage of work of construction in February 21, 2005 was negligible as will appear from photographs annexed to the affidavit affirmed on 5th September, 2005 and the state of work of construction as in August, 2005 was still at early stage as will appear from the inspection report dated 22nd September, 2005 filed under the order of the Division Bench and photographs annexed thereto. By consent of the parties the writ petition are to be decided by the Division Bench. (3). The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition. By consent of the parties the writ petition are to be decided by the Division Bench. (3). The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition. Admittedly, no order for conversion of land into bastu as required under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955 has been obtained. Consequently, penalty under section 4D of the said Act is attracted, for which FIR has been lodged. No argument has been made why FIR should be quashed. No copy of FIR has been annexed to the writ petition. FIR is for violation of section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955, which attracts provisions of section 4D of the said Act and an offence under section 4D of the said WBLR Act, 1955 is cognizable and non-bailable. No ground for quashing of FIR is made out. (1). In the petition, it is wrongly stated that fees for conversion have been paid. In fact, Court-fees for initiation of conversion cases have only been paid (Application for conversion at pages 37-52 of Sanjeevani). It so appears from the challans depositing Court-fees for conversion Case No. 2/2002-03 to 6/2002-03 and conversion Case No. 9/2002-03 to 13/2002-03 at pages 53-72 of the writ petition of Sanjeevani. (2). Under section 4D of the WBLR Act, 1955 any change of mode of use of land without taking order from the Collector under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955 is a cognizable and non-bailable offence and punishable with imprisonment of three years and fine of rupees fifty thousand or both. The petitioner started work of construction being fully aware of the illegality and they wanted to carry out the illegal work of construction under protection of interim order obtained from this Honble Court. Writ petitions are mala fide and made with oblique motive. (3). The building plan as sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat is clearly illegal and void. Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction to sanction construction of building on land recorded otherwise than as homestead land until the applicant produces the order allowing the change of classification of land by the Collector in view of Rule 23A or 23E of the Panchayat Administration Rules, 1989 since repealed by West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2000 and reenacted in Rule 22 or Rule 26 of the Rules of 2004. Therefore, regardless of the question of the wetland, the sanction of the building plan is without authority of law and void. The petitioner was obviously aware of law and cannot take advantage of it. (4). The writ petition should be dismissed and the illegal construction should be demolished. The due process of law stopped by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, should be vacated. "In the writ petition, the issue of wetland has not been raised. This issue is not relevant because even if the land is not wetland, it is admittedly "beel maach chas" and no building can be constructed thereon without first obtaining order under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955 from the Collector. Admittedly, no sanction of the Collector has been obtained under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955. In fact, the writ petitioner knew that the application for conversion was likely to be rejected by the Authority as will appear from the owners letter dated 17th October, 2003 addressed to the District Magistrate. The said letter was suppressed in the writ petition and is annexed to the A/O (page 26, Annexure - R2 of Sanjeevani). The formal order of rejection of application for conversion was issued on 3rd March, 2005. The writ petitioners have not filed any writ petition challenging the order of rejection dated 3rd March, 2005." 1. This plot of land is within the area covered by Annexure "C" to the writ petition and the order passed by this Honble Court in the case reported in People United for Better Living in Calcutta -Public and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 1993 Cal 215 , [A/O sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 Green Valley]. In A/R, it is disputed that the lands in question are wetland and covered by the order of this Honble Court. This disputed question of fact cannot conveniently be decided in the writ proceedings. It is also not necessary to go into this question because this writ petition is confined to the petitioners right to carry on construction and quashing, of FIR. Since it is an admitted violation of section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955, section 4D of the WBLR Act, 1955 is attracted, FIR undisputedly discloses cognizable offence. 2. There is an alternative forum for deciding the disputed question of wetland. 3. Since it is an admitted violation of section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955, section 4D of the WBLR Act, 1955 is attracted, FIR undisputedly discloses cognizable offence. 2. There is an alternative forum for deciding the disputed question of wetland. 3. The order of rejection of the application for conversion is on the ground that the plots are within the area covered by Annexure "C" to the writ petition mentioned in the judgment reported in People United for Better Living in Calcutta Public and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 1993 Cal 215 . This order of rejection is not subject-matter of this writ petition. In any event, the order of the Collector refusing change of use is appealable under section 54 of the WBLR Act, 1955. Appellate Authority is the Commissioner of the Division. The order of the Commissioner of the Division can be challenged by filing an application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. In view of alternative statutory remedy provided, the validity of the order of rejection of the Collector should not be gone into in this writ proceeding directly or indirectly. Writ petitioners can agitate this question in the statutory appeal. (5). Mr. Mitra contended that Mr. Mukherjees contention that in the absence of any specific notification under section 1(3) of the WBLR Act, 1955, section 4C of the WBLR Act cannot be enforced, has since been answered the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vassanti Devi Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, 2004(2) CLJ 123 , wherein it was held that Part IIB of the WBLR Act has become operative in a situation where no separate notification under section 1(3) was issued after its insertion through the WBLR (Amendment) Act, 1981 introducing section 4C as well. 6.5.1. Relying on the decision in Kamal Kumar Basu and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1997(2) CLJ 160, Mr. Mitra contended that when no permission under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955 is obtained, use of the land cannot be converted by making construction thereon. In the said decision, it is also held that the municipal authority cannot sanction any plan for sanction of the building without express permission under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955. (6). Relying on the decision in Santosh Kumar Verma and Ors. In the said decision, it is also held that the municipal authority cannot sanction any plan for sanction of the building without express permission under section 4C of the WBLR Act, 1955. (6). Relying on the decision in Santosh Kumar Verma and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1997 (2) SCC 713 , he contended that wrong exemption of some unit does not entitle the writ petitioners to claim similar relief in respect of his unit particularly when Vishal Construction (Aquatica) has not been made a party to this proceeding. He then relied on the decision in Chandigarh Administration and Anr. vs. Jagjit Singh and Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705 , where, in a similar case, it was held that the "High Court cannot ignore the law.........and say because in one case a particular order has been passed .........the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such order is contrary to law or otherwise". In Assistant Custodian E.P. and Ors. vs. Brij Kishore Agarwala and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2325 (Pr. 6), it was held that the State Government is not bound by illegal act of its offices. (7). In the decision in M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. vs. Chaitanyakumar and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1930 , it was held that investigation is not to be stayed even if FIR discloses no ground. Therefore, even on that save no relief can be had. That apart in this case prima facie case appears to have been made out. 6.8. In the circumstances, the writ petition should be dismissed and these appeals should be allowed.