Mundumari Ushayatan Math, Repd by Its President Durgapada Giri Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶1

14.07.2026 Item No.22 Ct. No. 19 PG

¶2

W.P.A. 14841 of 2026 Mundumari Ushayatan Math

¶3

Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Sourav Guchhait …..For the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Goutam Misra Ms. Ritu Das…..For the State

¶7

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. None appears on behalf of the private respondent despite service.

¶8

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 over the PWD Road at the instance the private respondent adjacent to the land of the petitioner measuring 70 decimals in Plot No. 488, Mouza-Birsinghapur under Police Station-Pingla.

¶9

2

¶10

It is submitted that the private respondent has constructed a building over the P.W.D. Road adjacent to the writ petitioner’s said property in such a fashion that the writ petitioner’s access to such property has been blocked.

¶11

At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, draws our attention to page-39 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the representation dated 18.06.2026 submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondent authorities requesting them to remove such unauthorised construction but in vain.

¶12

It is submitted that despite submission of representation on 18.06.2026 with the jurisdictional District Magistrate, i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein as well as with the respondent no. 9 authority being the jurisdictional BL&LRO, no action has been taken for removal of unauthorised construction.

¶13

3

¶14

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.

¶15

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 18.06.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

¶16

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 PWD Road adjacent to Plot No. 488, MouzaBirsinghapur under Police StationPingla, the writ petitioner approached the jurisdictional District Magistrate, i.e. the

¶17

4

¶18

respondent no. 2 herein as well as with the respondent no. 9 authority being the jurisdictional BL&LRO.

¶19

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

¶20

In the facts and circumstances, as

¶21

narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court, while disposing the instant writ petition directs, the respondent no. 9/jurisdictional BL &LRO to make a demarcation and/or field verification in the disputed plot after giving prior notice to the writ petitioner and the private respondent and shall submit such 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.

¶22

The respondent no. 6 authority on receipt of demarcation report from the

¶23

5

¶24

respondent no. 9/jurisdictional BL &LRO shall cause service of notice upon the writ petitioner and the private respondent and shall provide them the copies of the demarcation report.

¶25

The respondent no. 6 authority, on receipt of such demarcation report and/or field verification report from the respondent no. 9/jurisdictional BL & LRO, shall consider the representation dated 18.06.2026 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 respondent and/or her authorised representative, shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner and the private respondent.

¶26

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

¶27

6

¶28

of the demarcation report from the respondent no. 9/jurisdictional BL & LRO.

¶29

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

¶30

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 18.06.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner, he is directed to take all consequential action soon after passing of the reasoned order.

¶31

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record for the writ petitioner to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 6 authority as well as to the respondent no. 9 authority for their compliance.

¶32

Before parting with, it is made clear

¶33

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

¶34

7

¶35

averments made in the instant writ petition and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no. 6 authority.

¶36

With the aforementioned observations /directions, the instant writ petition being W.P.A. 14841 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶37

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

¶38

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Mundumari Ushayatan Math, Repd by Its President Durgapada Giri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundumari Ushayatan Math, Repd by Its President Durgapada Giri 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.