Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:— Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. The petitioner claims that the respondent-authorities illegally sought to demolish the premises, from which the petitioner is running a small business on the strength of a valid trade licence, on which cause of action the present writ petition was filed. However, unfortunately, during pendency of the present writ petition, the said premises were demolished by the respondent-authorities.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said demolition was in blatant violation of the provisions of Section 10(1) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. It is argued that no notice, as envisaged under the said provision, was ever issued to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, on the other hand, submits that there was a previous order at the instance of one Sanchita Samanta, passed by a co-ordinate Bench on April 18, 2019 in W.P. No. 5117(W) of 2019, wherein it was held that the authorities, finding encroachment on the highway, issued notice under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act on April 4, 2019. In such circumstances, the authorities having invoked the provisions of the Act of 1964, this Court declined to interfere in the matter, excepting requesting the authorities to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
4. It is further pointed out from annexure P/4, at page 25 of the instant writ petition, that notice under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act was served on several persons, including the said Sanchita Samanta, in due process of law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities next places reliance on paragraph no. 5 of the instant writ petition, wherein the writ petitioner claims that the petitioner is carrying on business during the last fifteen years “with the consent of the private respondent who is owner of the plot of land lying and situated on Plot No. 114 within the said Mouza, Police Station and District”.
6. In view of such specific admission on the part of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has been possessing the premises-in-question as a licensee under the owner of the plot, being the private respondent, namely, Sanchita Samanta.
7. Since a valid notice under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act was issued and confirmed by this Court, against the private respondent, under whom the present petitioner claims his occupation in respect of the disputed premises, the petitioner was not entitled to further notice under Section 10, since the petitioner, vis-à-vis the said notice, would act in the capacity of an agent of the private respondent, through whom the private respondent was in occupation of the premises-in-question.
8. In this regard, the definition of “encroachment” as given in Section 2(b) of 1964 Act has to be looked into, which specifies that encroachment means any occupation or use of any highway or part thereof by any unauthorised person and includes any projection on, over or under such highway.
9. If the argument of the petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is seen as to have an independent right as an unauthorised occupant, to entitle the petitioner to a separate notice under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act, despite notice having been issued to the principal, through whom the petitioner claims such occupation, it would give rise to a never-ending procedure, which would be absolutely against the public interest, since no highway would ever be built, as because it is always possible that an unauthorised occupant of the premises, after getting a notice under Section 10 (1), would set up somebody for claiming occupation through the said original occupant, and would claim that a separate notice is to be given to each of such individuals, which could arguably lead to infinity, upon every unauthorised occupant claiming his agent to be entitled to such notice and so on, which intention, being absurd, can never be attributed to the act of the legislature. As such, attributing a rational interpretation to Section 2(b) and Section 10 (1) of the 1964 Act, it has to be held that the notice served under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act on the owner of the premises (the actual ‘unauthorised person in occupation’), through whom the petitioner admitted to claim the right of possession to the premises-in-question, would be sufficient compliance of Section 10(1). In such view of the matter, the petitioner was not entitled to separate notice and there was no illegality in the respondent-authorities demolishing the premises-in-question upon proper notice under Section 10 (1) being issued to the owner thereof.
10. Accordingly, W.P. No. 21501(W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
11. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.