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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (4th respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation dated May 19, 2025, dispose of it by a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative, and communicate the reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, positively within six weeks from receipt of a server copy of the order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for her land (L.R. Dag No. 98, 9 decimals, Mouza Gopalpur, P.S. Gurap, District Hooghly) utilised for construction of Kolkata-Durgapur National Highway No. 19, for which no compensation had been paid. +1 more

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the compensation claim, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (4th respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation dated May 19, 2025 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative, and to communicate the reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, positively within six weeks from receipt of a server copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Where a representation has been made to a respondent authority, it is the duty of that authority to communicate its decision on the issues raised in the representation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sahida Ahmed v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 38 of 2026, decided 14.01.2026 (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.): The petitioner's land (L.R. Dag No. 98 measuring 9 decimals, Mouza Gopalpur, J.L. No. 165, L.R. Khatian No. 994, P.S. Gurap, District Hooghly) was allegedly utilised for construction of Kolkata-Durgapur National Highway No. 19 without payment of compensation. Her representation dated 19.05.2025 to the Project Director, NHAI remained undecided. The Court held that once a representation is made, it is the duty of the authority to communicate its decision on the issues raised therein, and, without entering into the merits, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Project Director, NHAI (4th respondent) to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her authorised representative, communicating the order positively within six weeks of receipt of a server copy of the order. No order as to costs.

Sl.11 14.01.2026 Court No.19 BP

WPA 38 of 2026

Sahida Ahmed -versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Mahammad Mahmud ..for the petitioner

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Md. Abu Reja Jaglul Kabir ..for the State

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the National Highway Authority of India has been duly served.

In spite of service none appears for the National Highway Authority of India.

The State is represented by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Government Advocate.

The petitioner alleges that the property of the petitioner being L.R. Dag No. 98 measuring 9 decimals within Mouza Gopalpur, J.L. No. 165 under L.R. Khatian No. 994 under Police Station Gurap in the District of Hooghly has been utilized for the purpose of construction of Kolkata-Durgapur National Highway No.19. The petitioner alleges that though the property of the petitioner has been utilized but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner

2

submitted a representation dated 19^th May, 2025 before the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that no decision on such representation has been communicated to the petitioner till date.

Since a representation has been made, it is the duty of the respondent authority to communicate its decision on the issues raised in the representation.

Without entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this representation dated 19^th May, 2025, the writ petition being WPA 38 of 2026 stands disposed of by directing the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India being the 4^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated May 19, 2025 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative and to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.

There shall be however no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)