Manarul Malitya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

08.07.2026 Item No.12 Ct. No. 19 PG

WPA 9271 of 2026 Manarul Malitya Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Shabana Hasin Mr. Mobaidur Hossain……….for the petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Saikat Dey …..for the State Mr. Mohaimenul Mondal…….for the respondent nos. 9 to 13

¶5

The writ petitioner, the respondent/State and the private respondents are represented by their respective learned counsel.

¶6

This Court has heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties at length.

¶7

In course of hearing, Ms. Shabana Hasin, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, at the very outset, placed her reliance upon the order dated 05.12.2025, as passed in WPA 26746 of 2025, whereby and whereunder a coordinate Bench directed the jurisdictional BL & LRO to submit a report regarding alleged encroachment over the PWD land with the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer i.e. the respondent no. 6 authority and the respondent no. 6 authority was directed to take appropriate steps under section 10 of the

¶8

2

¶9

West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’ in short).

¶10

It is submitted by Ms. Hasin that pursuant to the said order dated 05.12.2025, demarcation was carried out by the respondent no. 7 authority, wherein it has been categorically indicated that there was encroachment of 591 square feet and 281 square feet of land in front of Plot No. 2346 and such encroached land belongs to PWD.

¶11

Drawing attention to page no. 53 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Ms. Hasin that thereafter, in terms of the said order dated 05.12.2025, the respondent no.6 authority initiated proceeding under section 10 of the Act of 1964 and the said authority also noticed encroachment to the extent of 591 square feet of land and 280 square feet of land respectively over the PWD land in front of writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 2346.

¶12

Drawing attention to page no. 54 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of notice under section 10(1) of the Act of 1964 dated 06.03.2026, it is submitted that after passing of the order dated 19.02.2026 by the respondent no. 6 authority regarding his finding of encroachment for the 591 square

¶13

3

¶14

feet of land and 280 square feet of land belonging to PWD respectively, the respondent no. 6 authority issued the said notice for removal of encroachment in respect of 591 square feet of land only but no notice under section 10(1) of the Act of 1964 has been issued in respect of the encroached area of 280 square feet, as has been seen from the reasoned order of the respondent no. 6 authority dated 06.03.2026.

¶15

It is thus, submitted by Ms. Hasin that it is a fit case for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no. 6 authority commanding him to issue notice for removal of encroachment in respect of 280 square feet of PWD land in front of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 2346 in MouzaChandpur, which is causing hindrance to the writ petitioner as to his free egress and ingress.

¶16

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that despite passing of the order dated 08.06.2026, she is not in a position to apprise this Court, in absence of appropriate instruction, whether any notice for removal of encroachment of 280 square feet of PWD land

¶17

4

¶18

in front of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 2346 in Mouza-Chandpur has been issued or not.

¶19

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits before this Court that over the said 280 square feet of PWD land, there exists a temple and a pond which is/are being used for worship by the villagers.

¶20

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court, it appears that when the respondent no. 6 authority in his reasoned order dated 19.02.2026 has noticed encroachment of 280 square feet of PWD land in front of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 2346, there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent no. 6 for not issuing notice under section 10(1) of the Act of 1964 against the encroachers asking them to remove the encroachment.

¶21

Such being the position, the respondent no. 6 authority is hereby directed to issue a notice under section 10(1) of the Act of 1964 against the encroachers in respect of 280 square feet of PWD land in front of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 2346 in Mouza-Chandpur positively within 15 working

¶22

5

¶23

days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order.

¶24

In the event the said encroachers fail to remove the encroachment pursuant to the said proposed notice vis-à-vis the notice, as has already been issued dated 06.03.2026 for removal of encroachment of 591 square feet of land, the respondent no.6 authority is directed to take appropriate steps under section 10(2) of the Act of 1964 by referring the matter to the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. the respondent no. 3 authority.

¶25

The respondent no. 3 authority, on receipt of the requisition/application from the respondent no. 6 authority, shall initiate proceeding/proceedings under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 and after giving due notice to the writ petitioner, private respondents and/or any other stakeholder(s), if there be any, shall conclude the proceeding under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964 within 30 working days from

¶26

the date of receipt of the application/requisition from the respondent no. 6 authority.

¶27

It is further directed that the respondent no. 3 authority, before initiating a proceeding under section 10(3) of the Act of 1964, shall

¶28

6

¶29

serve copies of the demarcation report of the respondent no. 7 authority and/or the jurisdictional Revenue Officer to the writ petitioner, private respondents as well as to the other stakeholder, if there by any.

¶30

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

¶31

With the aforementioned observations/ directions the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

It is however, made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the order dated 19.02.2026 as passed by the respondent no. 6 authority and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication before the respondent no. 6 authority as well as before the respondent no. 3 authority.

¶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.)

Manarul Malitya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manarul Malitya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Abdul Basir Sk and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Ahmadullah Asad Vs Rupak Nandi, the Assistant Engineer, PWD and Anr.

Sk. Rownaqzzaman and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Harendra Nath Naskar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Somanjana Mukherjee Vs Dinabandu Mahavidyalaya & Ors.

Kamal Pakira & Ors. Vs Chandernagore Municipal Corporation & Ors.