Dismissed¶30

Prasad Sarkar and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2026WPA/2014/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.A. 2014 of 2026 — West Bengal Highways Act 1964, Sections 10(3) and 10(4) — eviction case and appeal — non-supply of B.L. & L.R.O. demarcation report (respondent no.8) — natural justice plea rejected as grievance never raised below — encroachment on Plot No.8963 upheld — judicial review not appellate re-appreciation of materials — writ petition dismissed, interim orders vacated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; with dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, if any, stands vacated, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed. ¶30

Prasad Sarkar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; with dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, if any, stands vacated, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 19.06.2025 (respondent no.4, Section 10(3)) and 09.12.2025 (respondent no.3, Section 10(4)) are vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice owing to non-supply of copies of the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O. (respondent no.8), on which both authorities relied, so as to warrant interference in judicial review. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The plea of breach of natural justice for non-supply of the demarcation report fails: the writ petitioners did not raise their grievance regarding non-supply of the demarcation report of respondent no.8 even before respondent no.3 in the appeal proceedings under Section 10(4) of the Act of 1964 (nor, as pointed out by counsel for the State, did they request copies of the report before the authorities below).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Respondent nos.3 and 4, having considered the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O. (respondent no.8), came to a factual finding that in respect of Plot No.8963 encroachment was made by the writ petitioners; no material was placed showing those findings to be perverse or illegal, or vitiated by non-consideration of relevant materials or consideration of extraneous materials not on record.

¶24

Key takeaways

A Court exercising writ jurisdiction in judicial review is not supposed to act as an Appellate Court and is not permitted to take a contrary view on the appreciation of materials by the respondent nos.3 and 4 authorities below.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.A. 2014 of 2026) dismissed. The challenge was to (i) the order dated 19.06.2025 of respondent no.4 disposing an eviction case under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, and (ii) the order dated 09.12.2025 of respondent no.3 in an appeal under Section 10(4) of that Act. The petitioners contended that both authorities relied on the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O. (respondent no.8) without supplying copies of it to them, violating natural justice. The Court held that the grievance of non-supply was not raised even before respondent no.3 in the appeal; that respondent nos.3 and 4, on the demarcation report, had factually found encroachment by the petitioners in respect of Plot No.8963 and no material showed those findings perverse, illegal or vitiated; and that a Court in writ jurisdiction in judicial review is not to act as an Appellate Court or take a contrary view on the authorities' appreciation of materials. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it, vacated any interim order, and dismissed pending interlocutory applications.

¶1

01.07.2026 Item No.66 Ct. No.19 KS

¶2

W.P.A. 2014 of 2026

¶3

Prasad Sarkar & Ors.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samit Bhanja Mr. Samrat Dey Paul Mr. Subhromoy Paul Mr. Arka Roy

¶7

Mr. Anish Chakraborty

¶8

….. For the Petitioners Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya Ms. Joyita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Akash Adak

¶9

…..For the State

¶10

Parties are represented through their respective learned counsel.

¶11

Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioners in Court, is taken on record.

¶12

None appears on behalf of the private respondents.

¶13

The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 09.12.2025 as passed by the respondent no.3 in an appeal under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act of 1964”) as well as the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the respondent

¶14

¶15

no.4 in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1964.

¶16

At the time of hearing, Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, at the very outset, draws the attention of this Court to the aforementioned two impugned orders.

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. Lahiri that on perusal of the aforementioned two impugned orders it would reveal that neither the respondent no.4 authority nor the respondent no.3 authority while disposing the eviction case under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 and the appeal under Section 10(4) of the Act of 1964 failed to visualize that copies of the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O. i.e. the respondent no.8 have not been supplied to the writ petitioners though, both the respondent nos.3 and 4 authorities while passing the impugned orders completely relied upon by such report.

¶18

It is further argued by Mr. Lahiri that on account of non-supply of copies of the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O., the

¶19

¶20

aforementioned respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 authorities have violated the principles of natural justice while disposing the said eviction case as well as the appeal under the Act of 1964 and thus, two impugned orders are required to be interfered with in judicial review and thus, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

¶21

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, however, disputed the contention of Mr. Lahiri. It is argued by Mr. Lahiri that neither before the respondent no.4 authority nor before the respondent no.3 authority, the present writ petitioners requested them to provide the copies of the demarcation report as have been prepared by the respondent no.8 authority.

¶22

It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that in paragraph 11 of the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have categorically admitted that the property in question belongs to the State, where the encroachment has been made by them.

¶23

¶24

On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the contending parties it appears to this Court that both the respondent no.4 and 3 authorities while disposing the case under Section 10(3) and appeal under Section 10(4) of the Act of 1964 have considered the demarcation report of the jurisdictional B.L. & L.R.O. i.e. respondent no.8 and came to a factual finding that in respect of Plot No.8963 encroachment has been made by the present writ petitioners. No materials could be placed before this Court that such findings of the respondent nos.3 and 4 authorities are either perverse or illegal and/or such findings have been vitiated for non-consideration of relevant materials and/or consideration of some extraneous materials, which are not on record.

¶25

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharya that even before the respondent no.3 authority in the appeal proceedings under Section 10(4) of the said Act of 1964, the writ petitioners have not raised their grievance regarding non-supply of

¶26

¶27

demarcation report of the respondent no.8 authority.

¶28

In considered view, this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction in judicial review is not supposed to act as an Appellate Court and is not permitted to take a contrary view as have been taken by the respondent nos.3 and 4 authorities based on appreciation of materials, as placed before them.

¶29

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court thus finds no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

With the dismissal of the instant writ petition, interim order, if there be any, stands hereby vacated.

¶32

Pending interlocutory applications, if there be any, are also dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Prasad Sarkar and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Sarkar and Ors. 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

Tarun Kanti Mondal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Idrish and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chanderpara Fisherman Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Swapan Koley and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shyamal Sardar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Brajamohan Mishra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.