Prasun Kumar Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Jun 2026WPA(P)/565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (mandamus) for commencement of the Kaliyaganj–Buniadpur new BG railway line (N.F. Railway) disposed of on 08.06.2026 without issuing any writ; Bench satisfied by Railway Board de-freezing (29.02.2024), revised sanction of Rs.997.09 Cr. (27.02.2025), s.20A Gazette notifications and s.20B survey under the Railway Amendment Act, 2008, and the Assistant Land Acquisition Officer's report affirmed 22.01.2026; land acquisition in Uttar Dinajpur (113.650 acre) and Dakshin Dinajpur (301.04 acre); fund allotment 2025-26: 128.10 crore; petitioner and respondent/State unrepresented at hearing.

What did the court decide?

No writ of mandamus issued; the writ petition was disposed of in view of the positive action taken by the respondent/State and the Railway authority. ¶¶40

Prasun Kumar Das Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No writ of mandamus issued; the writ petition was disposed of in view of the positive action taken by the respondent/State and the Railway authority.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued against the respondent authorities for initiating construction of the railway service from Kaliyaganj to Buniadpur in the Districts of Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal. +1 more

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

Both the respondent/State and the Railway authority have taken effective steps for initiating the work of Railway service from Kaliyaganj to Buniadpur.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

In view of such positive action taken by the respondents, no writ was required to be issued upon the respondent authorities.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bench of Sujoy Paul, CJ. and Partha Sarathi Sen, J. (opinion dictated by Sen, J.) disposed of W.P.A. (P) 565 of 2022 (Prasun Kumar Das v. Union of India & Ors.) on 08.06.2026. The writ petitioner's basic prayer was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to initiate construction of the railway service from Kaliyaganj to Buniadpur across Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent/State appeared; counsel for the Railway authority produced a communication dated 03.12.2025 of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction – III, N.F. Railway, Katihar recording that the Detailed Estimate of Rs.222.22 Cr. (sanctioned 29.12.2010) had been replaced by a Revised Estimate of Rs.997.09 Cr. sanctioned on 27.02.2025, that the project, kept in abeyance since 17.10.2019, was de-frozen on 29.02.2024, that Gazette notifications u/s 20A were published (05/08/2025 vide S.O. 3499; newspapers 18-19/08/2025), survey u/s 20B commenced 24/11/2025, and fund allotment for 2025-26 was 128.10 crore. The report of the Assistant Land Acquisition Officer (respondent no.7), affirmed 22.01.2026, confirmed corresponding land-acquisition steps. Finding effective steps taken by both the respondent/State and the Railway authority, the Bench held no writ was required and disposed of the petition. Statutes: ss. 20A, 20B, Railway Amendment Act, 2008. No precedent relied upon.

¶1

08.06.2026 Item No.18 Ct. No.1 KS

¶2

W.P.A. (P) 565 of 2022 Prasun Kumar Das

¶3

Vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. D.S.G.I. Ms. Oisani Mukherjee Ms. D. Shaw

¶6

…..For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶7

DICTATED BY PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

¶8

None appears on behalf of the writ petitioner

¶9

and for the respondent/State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Railway authority is, however, present.

¶11

On perusal of the prayers of the writ petition

¶12

it reveals that the basic prayer of the writ petitioner is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the respondent authorities for initiating the construction work of Railway service from Kaliyaganj to Buniadpur in the District of Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur in the State of West Bengal.

¶13

¶14

At this juncture, Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authority draws our attention to the copy of the communication dated 03.12.2025 as received

¶15

by him from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction – III, N.F. Railway, Katihar.

¶16

5. On perusal of the said letter dated 03.12.2025 the following reveals:-

¶17

“ Detailed Estimate sanctioned vide RB's letter no. 2009/ W1/ NL/ NF/ Kaliaganj-Buniadpur dtd.29.12.2010 at Rs.222.22 Cr.

¶18

Sub structure of 03 nos. Major bridges no.1.18 & 29 are partially constructed in the year 2011-13 & work was stopped due to paucity of fund in the year 2013.

¶19

This project kept in abeyance vide letter W/25/CON/Budget/2019-20 dated 17.10.2019.

¶20

Project de-freeze-Vide Rly Bd's L/No 2024/W1/NFR/NL Kaliaganj-Buniadpur 11(E-3456638) dated29.02.2024.

¶21

LA Proposal for 113.650 acre of land under Uttar Dinajpur was submitted to DM/Uttar Dinajpur on dt. 27.12.2024. Gazette notifications u/s 20A already published in local Newspaper on Dt. 18/08/2025 & 19/08/2025 under district Uttar Dinajpur, Survey work for Land Acquisition under district Uttar Dinajpur started on dated-24.11.2025.

¶22

LA Proposal for 301.04 acre of land under Dakshin Dinajpur was submitted to DM Dakshin Dinajpur on dt. 31.01.2025. Gazette notification u/s 20A for 109.43 acre of land has been published in the Gazette of India on dt. 29.10.2025. Further process is in progress for publishing in local news paper by the DM/Dakshin Dinajpur.

¶23

Revised Estimate of Kaliyaganj-Buniadpur N/L Project has been sanctioned by Railway Board for Rs.997.09 Cr. vide RB's letter No. 2024 W- 1/NFR/NL/Kaliaganj-Buniadpur/11 (E-3456638) dated 27.02.2025.

¶24

¶25

Lsection for Kaliaganj-Buniadpur already approved.

¶26

GAD of all minor bridges (23 nos), RUB (29 nos) & major bridges (Br No- 15.44 & 45) & ESP of Kaliaganj, Fatehpur, Kushmandi, Aminpur & Buniadpur is under process of approval.

¶27

Fund allotment for the year 2025-26 is 128.10 crore.”

¶28

At this juncture, if we look to the report of the respondent no.7 i.e. the Assistant Land Acquisition Officer, it reveals that in its report as affirmed on 22.01.2026, the said Land

¶29

Acquisition Officer pointed out the following facts:-

¶30

“3 Proposal for acquisition of land for KaliyaganjBuniadpur New BG line project has been received from N.F. Railway on 27/12/2024 vide memo no.W/207/CON/KAJ-BNDP/LAND/Pt-I/2024/27 dated 26/12/2024 (113.650 Acre & 11 Km in Uttar Dinajpur District).

¶31

4. Administrative approval has been received on 20/01/2025 from the Special Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal vide memo no. SS-77-LA/1R-35/11(pt) dated 20/01/2025.

¶32

5. Gazette Notification u/s 20A of the Railway Amendment Act, 2008 has been published on 05/08/2025 vide S.O. 3499.

¶33

6. Substance of the Notification has been published in the daily newspapers namely, 1) Aajkaal (Bengali edition) on 18/08/2025. 2) The Statesman (English edition) on 19/08/2025.

¶34

7. Survey works u/s 20B of the Railway Amendment Act, 2008 has been started on the field on and from 24/11/2025 onwards.”

¶35

In view of progress, as noticed by us from the

¶36

report of the respondent/State as well as the

¶37

¶38

Railway authority, we find that both the respondent/State as well as Railway authority have taken effective steps for initiating the work of Railway service from Kaliyaganj to Buniiadpur in the District of Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur in the State of West Bengal.

¶39

In view of such, we consider that no Writ is required to be issued upon the respondent authorities in view of positive action taken by them, as reflected in the earlier paragraphs.

¶40

With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

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

¶42

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)

¶43

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Prasun Kumar Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasun Kumar Das v. Union of India 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

Koyel Samanta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Amit Kumar Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rabiul Islam and Anr. Vs Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Bankim Nandi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sukdev Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subrata Das Vs the Union of India and Ors.