Dismissed¶33

Promod Choudhury Alias Pramod Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Judicial review – writ court not an appellate court

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2025WPA/9971/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.A. 9971 of 2023; Promod Choudhury alias Pramod Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors.; judicial review; perversity; non-consideration of materials; writ court not appellate court; BL & LRO demarcation report; joint field enquiry; NHAI national highway widening; alignment area; 910 sq. feet; Plot No. 804; R.S. Plot No. 1072; mouza Paschim Bhatjungla; district Nadia; riat; no partition; WPA 20035 of 2019; dismissed without costs; liberty to approach appropriate forum; Partha Sarathi Sen, J.; order dated 07.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs, with liberty reserved to the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. ¶33

Promod Choudhury Alias Pramod Chowdhury Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs, with liberty reserved to the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 2nd February, 2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 authority (resting on the BL & LRO demarcation report) is perverse or vitiated by non-consideration of materials, and therefore liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

In judicial review over administrative action, the writ court is not an appellate court; its only consideration is whether the impugned order is perverse or vitiated by non-consideration of available materials.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

No material was placed on behalf of the writ petitioner to show that the demarcation report filed by the jurisdictional BL & LRO had no basis at all.

¶31

Key takeaways

The respondent no. 3 authority correctly came to a logical conclusion on the petitioner's grievance; its decision is neither perverse nor vitiated by non-consideration of materials on record.ratio¶32
On the basis of the BL & LRO demarcation report, the respondent no. 3 authority's factual finding that the writ petitioner's occupied land lies beyond the NHAI alignment area stands, and the contention that no partition of the relevant plot took place was not accepted as convincing.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Judicial review — writ court not an appellate court — challenge to order dated 02.02.2023 of respondent no. 3 authority rejecting petitioner's claim that NHAI (respondent nos. 5 and 6) unlawfully utilized 910 sq. feet of land with structure in Plot No. 804 (R.S. Plot No. 1072), mouza Paschim Bhatjungla, district Nadia, without acquisition or compensation — impugned order rested on demarcation report dated 19.01.2023 of jurisdictional BL & LRO, submitted pursuant to judgment dated 11.07.2022 in WPA 20035 of 2019 — no material placed to show the demarcation report baseless — finding that petitioner's occupied land lies beyond the highway alignment neither perverse nor vitiated by non-consideration of materials — writ petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

¶1

42 07.07.2025 ML Ct.19 KC

¶2

W.P.A. 9971 of 2023

¶3

Sri Promod Choudhury alias Pramod Chowdhury

¶4

-vs-

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal

¶7

Ms. Manika Roy Ms. Ankita Chowdhury Mr. Atanu Sur

¶8

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal

¶9

….for the petitioner. ….for the NHAI. ….for the State.

¶10

The writ petitioner, the respondent State and its functionaries i.e. the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and NHAI authority and its functionaries i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 are represented by their respective learned advocates.

¶11

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs for quashing of the order dated 2^nd February, 2023 as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority.

¶12

At the time of hearing, Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of

¶13

¶14

the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 24 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the information of the relevant plot no. 804 corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1072 in mouza Paschim Bhatjungla, district Nadia. It is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that from the copy of the said information it would reveal that the present writ petitioner is a riat in respect of the aforementioned plot.

¶15

Drawing attention to page nos. 27 and 28 of the instant writ petition being copies of two representations as submitted by the writ petitioner it is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that under cover of the said representations it has been contended by the writ petitioner that in the aforementioned plot, the respondent no. 5 authority have most unlawfully utilized 910 sq. feet of land with structure of the writ petitioner without initiating any valid process of acquisition and without disbursing adequate compensation.

¶16

It is further submitted by Mr. Sanyal

¶17

¶18

that from the order under challenge dated 2^nd February, 2023 it would reveal that the respondent no. 3 authority while rejecting the contention of the writ petitioner practically relied upon a report of the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) as submitted on 19^th January, 2023 and the respondent no. 3 has miserably failed to visualize that in respect of the relevant plot no partition took effect.

¶19

It is further submitted by Mr. Sanyal that the finding of the respondent no. 3 authority while passing the order dated 2^nd February, 2023 is faulty and is required to be quashed.

¶20

Ms. Roy, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 contended that no case has been made for interfering with the order under challenge.

¶21

Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior government advocate on behalf of the State respondent adopted the argument of Ms. Roy.

¶22

On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court

¶23

¶24

and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it reveals to this Court that pursuant to a judgment and order dated 11^th July, 2022 as passed in WPA 20035 of 2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court the jurisdictional BL & LRO conducted a joint field enquiry and thereafter submitted his report before the respondent no. 3 authority on 19^th January, 2023.

¶25

10 .The respondent no. 3 authority while passing the order under challenge practically relied upon such demarcation report as submitted by the jurisdictional BL & LRO and came to a finding that the land of the writ petitioner is situated beyond the alignment area which was acquired for widening the national highway at the behest of the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶26

11 Though it has been strongly contended by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the writ petitioner that such finding of the respondent no. 3 authority is faulty inasmuch as the respondent no. 3

¶27

¶28

authority failed to visualize that in respect of the relevant plot no partition took place, such contention of Mr. Sanyal does not appear to this Court as much convincing inasmuch as this Court is very conscious that sitting in a writ jurisdiction and while entertaining a review over the action of the respondent authority this Court is not supposed to act as an Appellate Court. The only consideration before this Court in judicial review would be as to whether the order as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority is otherwise perverse and/or non-consideration of materials as available before him.

¶29

12 On careful consideration of the order under challenge dated 2^nd February, 2023 as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority it rather appears to this Court that the respondent no. 3 authority on the basis of the said demarcation report came to a factual finding that the writ petitioner’s occupied land in the relevant plot of land is beyond the alignment area of NHAI authority.

¶30

¶31

On behalf of the writ petitioner no material could be placed that the demarcation report as filed by the jurisdictional BL & LRO has got no basis at all.

¶32

This Court thus finds that the respondent no. 3 authority correctly came to a logical conclusion with regard to the grievance of the writ petitioner and thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the decision of the respondent no. 3 authority is either perverse or is vitiated for nonconsideration of materials as available in the record.

¶33