Partly allowed

Sukomal Jana and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 Jul 2026WPA/16429/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against order directing evictors under Public Land Act. Court set aside order and memo, directed supply of demarcation report, and fixed date for reconsideration with strict timelines to prevent repeated adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order and memo; direct authority to supply demarcation report by 27.07.2026; fix date for personal hearing.

Sukomal Jana and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

21.07.2026 Item No.46 Ct. No. 19 PG

¶2

WPA 16429 of 2026 Sukomal Jana & Anr. Vs.

¶3

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta Mr. Subham Dutta……….for the petitioners

¶5

Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Roy Mr. Prisanka Ganguly ……………for the State

¶6

At the very outset, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that in the order dated 14.07.2026, his name has been typed as ‘Siddhartha Sarkar’ instead of ‘Siddhartha Sankar Roy’.

¶7

Necessary correction in this regard be carried out by the department forthwith in terms of this order.

¶8

Let this order be treated as part of the order dated 14.07.2026

¶9

Learned advocate for the writ petitioners and the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/State are present.

¶10

The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 18.06.2026, as

¶11

¶12

passed by the respondent no. 4 authority in a proceeding under section 3 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (‘Act of 1962’ in short) and the memo dated 06.7.2026, as issued by the respondent no. 6 authority pursuant to the said impugned order dated 18.06.2026.

¶13

By the impugned order dated 18.06.2026, the respondent no. 3 authority in a proceeding under section 3 of the Act of 1962 directed the respondent no. 6 authority to remove the encroachment and recover the possession, as has been done by the present writ petitioners over the disputed plot of land.

¶14

Pursuant to the said order dated 18.06.2026, the impugned memo dated 06.07.2026 was issued by the respondent no. 6 authority directing the writ petitioners to vacate the plot in question, particulars of which has been mentioned in the schedule of the said memo on or before 13.07.2026.

¶15

¶16

At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that admittedly, prior to the initiation of the proceeding under section 3 of the Act of 1962, the writ petitioners were served with two show cause notices. However, the respondent no. 3 authority failed to consider the replies given to such show cause notices, wherein it has been specifically averred on behalf of the writ petitioners that on account of physical ailment of writ petitioner no.1, they would not be in a position to appear before him.

¶17

It is contended further that along with the show cause notice, the demarcation report in respect of the plot in question, particulars of which has been mentioned in the schedule of the memo dated 06.7.2026 was not provided to them.

¶18

Thus, it is submitted that it is a glaring example of violation of principles of natural justice for which interference by this Court in its prerogative writ jurisdiction is warranted.

¶19

¶20

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted that despite opportunities given to the writ petitioners, they have failed and/or neglected to comply with the show cause notices, as issued by the respondent no. 3 authority in a proceeding under section 3 of the Act of 1962.

¶21

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court finds that after receipt of two successive show cause notices from the respondent no. 3 authority in a proceeding under section 3 of the Act of 1962, the writ petitioners requested the said respondent no. 3 authority to defer hearing of the said proceeding on account of physical ailment of writ petitioner no.1.

¶22

It appears that the respondent no. 3 authority found that the prayer for time on behalf of the writ petitioners herein is not cogent and thus, passed the impugned

¶23

¶24

order dated 18.06.2026 in consequence whereof, the impugned memo dated 06.07.2026 was issued.

¶25

It however, appears to this Court that for ends of justice, the writ petitioners are entitled to get another opportunity.

¶26

In view of such, this Court, while disposing the instant writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2026, as passed by the respondent no. 3 authority vis-à-vis the impugned memo dated 06.07.2026, as passed by the respondent no. 6 authority.

¶27

This Court further directs the respondent no. 3 authority to supply a copy of the demarcation report, as prepared respondent no.6 authority to the writ petitioners positively on or before 27.07.2026 either by speed post or by special messenger.

¶28

The writ petitioners are directed to appear in person before the respondent no.3 authority on 04.08.2026 with their reply to the show cause notice, if there be

¶29

¶30

any and shall participate in the proceeding under section 3 of the Act of 1962.

¶31

It is further made clear that for no reason whatsoever, the respondent no. 3 authority shall grant any adjournment to the present writ petitioners, in the event, any such prayer is made by the writ petitioners.

¶32

The respondent no. 3 authority is thereafter at liberty to pass a reasoned order in terms of the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1962. However, such order is to be passed positively by 14.08.2026.

¶33

The respondent no. 3 authority is further directed to provide a copy of the reasoned order to the writ petitioners soon after passing thereof.

¶34

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

¶35

Liberty is given to the learned advocate for the respondent/State to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 3 and 6 authorities, who

¶36

¶37

are directed to act on the server copy of this order.

¶38

Before parting with, it is, further made clear that in the event while passing the reasoned order under section 4 of the Act of 1962, the respondent no. 3 authority finds no cogent reason to accept the cause shown by the writ petitioners herein, he is directed to take all consequential action soon thereafter.

¶39

24. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

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

¶41

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Sukomal Jana and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukomal Jana and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Motaleb Gazi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suraj Kumar Mahato and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vivekananda Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abhisek Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sri Amitava Chowdhury Vs State of Wb through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Co. Operation and Ors.

Gadadhar Singha Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.