Dismissed¶17

Renuka Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 Jun 2024WPA/23172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: West Bengal Highways Act 1964; Section 10; Section 10(4); Appellate Authority; encroachment; public land; highway; Murshidabad; Sagardighi; Mouza Popara; Plot 629; District Magistrate; affirmation of order; dismissal; no costs. Useful for: writ petitions challenging encroachment-removal orders under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 where the petitioner's own advocate admitted unlawful encroachment and sought time to vacate.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and no order was made as to costs. ¶17

Renuka Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

M/L. 204. June 19, 2024. MNS.

¶2

WPA No. 23172 of 2022

¶3

Renuka Bibi

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of West Bengal and others

¶6

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal

¶7

… for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Mr. Subrata Das Gupta

¶9

…for the State.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against an order dated September 9, 2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.

¶11

Briefly, pursuant to a direction passed in an earlier Writ Petition, being WPA No. 8597 of 2021, the respondent authorities were directed to conclude the proceeding initiated under Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964.

¶12

In terms of the above directions, the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad, being the respondent No. 2, inter alia , affirming the order dated September 9, 2022.

¶13

It appears from the records that pursuant to an order of this Court and in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, the State authorities had initiated a

¶14

¶15

proceeding for illegal and unlawful encroachment on public land which culminated in the passing of the above orders.

¶16

The impugned order is elaborate and wellreasoned. There is no perversity, illegality or unreasonableness in the impugned order. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality warranting any interference with the impugned order. The fact of illegal and unlawful encroachment has been elaborately gone into. In fact, in the order dated July 14, 2022, it has been categorically recorded that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners confessed that his clients had encroached unlawfully upon the Highway in front of the Plot 629 of MouzaPopara of Sagardighi and has sought for 90 days time to vacate the same. In view of such categorical submission made on behalf of the petitioner, there is no ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

WPA No. 23172 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)

Renuka Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sutapa Hatai Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Tarun Kumar Dutta Vs Chairman, Uco Bank & Ors.

Sukumar Pal Vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.

R. Kasivelu Vs Union of India & Ors.

Robin Cammodeal Pvt. Limited and Anr. Vs Andhra Bank and Ors.

Kartick Chandra Das Vs Union of India & Ors.