Susanta Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities commanding them to remove and demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction and/or to remove illegal encroachments at the instance the private respondents over the PWD Road by the side of the petitioner’s land measuring 17 decimals

¶11

2

¶12

in Plot No. 264 under Mouza- Purba Raypur under Mandir Bazar, DistrictSouth 24-Parganas. It is submitted that the alleged encroachment is made on the P.W.D Road in front of/by the side of writ petitioner’s said land, as a result whereof, the writ petitioner is not getting free egress and ingress to his property.

¶13

At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, draws our attention to page-27 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the representation dated 11.06.2026 submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondent authorities requesting them to remove the encroachment.

¶14

It is submitted that despite submission of representation on 11.06.2026 with the jurisdictional District Magistrate, i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein as well as with the respondent no. 3 authority being the jurisdictional SDO, no action has been taken for removal of encroachment.

¶15

3

¶16

It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

¶17

Contention of the writ petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate for the private respondents by saying that the construction of the private respondents is very old and for a considerable length of time, no objection has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioner.

¶18

It is, thus, submitted that the present writ petition is filed with oblique motive and the same may be dismissed.

¶19

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, however, in his usual fairness submits that appropriate order may be passed upon the respondent no. 6 authority to consider the representation dated 11.06.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

4

¶21

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to us that admittedly some materials have been placed before this Court that alleging illegal encroachment over Plot No. 264 under Mouza- Purba Raypur under Mandir Bazar, District- South 24Parganas, the writ petitioner approached the respondent no. 2 authority, respondent no. 3 authority as well as the respondent no. 6 authority.

¶22

It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that despite such submission of representation, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances, as narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court, while disposing the instant writ petition directs, the jurisdictional BL &LRO to make a field verification at the disputed plot after giving prior notice to the writ petitioner and the private

¶24

5

¶25

respondents and shall submit a demarcation report and/or field verification report with the respondent no. 6 authority within 30 working days from the date of communication of server copy of this order by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner.

¶26

The respondent no. 6 authority on

¶27

receipt of demarcation report from the respondent no. 8/jurisdictional BL &LRO shall cause service of notice upon the writ petitioner and the private respondents and shall provide them the copies of the demarcation report.

¶28

The respondent no. 6 authority, on receipt of such demarcation report and/or field verification report from the respondent no. 8/jurisdictional BL & LRO, shall consider the representation dated 11.06.2026 in the light of the said demarcation report, as would be received from the jurisdictional BL & LRO and after giving due chance of hearing both to the writ petitioner and the private

¶29

6

¶30

respondents and/or their authorised representative, shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner and the private respondents.

¶31

The entire exercise, as indicated hereinabove, shall have to be completed by the respondent no. 6 authority within 45 working days from the date of receipt of the demarcation report from the respondent no. 8/jurisdictional BL & LRO.

¶32

The time limits, as fixed by this Court are peremptory and mandatory.

¶33

Before parting with, it is made clear that in the event while passing the reasoned order, the respondent no. 6 authority finds sufficient merit in the representation dated 11.06.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner, he is directed to take all consequential action soon after passing of the reasoned order.

¶34

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record for the writ petitioner

¶35

7

¶36

to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 6 authority as well as to the respondent no. 8 authority for their compliance.

¶37

Before parting with, it is made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the representation of the writ petitioner as well as with regard to the averments made in the instant writ petition and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no. 6 authority.

¶38

With the aforementioned observations /directions, the instant writ petition being W.P.A. 14820 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶39

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶40

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Susanta Halder v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Halder 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupam Mondal Vs Bijin Krishna, the District Magistrate and Colector Paschim Medinipur

Sk Saidul and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Md. Mowajjem Hossain and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Mahfuzul Alam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ranjan Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dhananjoy Koley and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.