Court No. 19 (265719) 17.02.2026 (AD 7) (S. Banerjee) WPA 3069 of 2026 Mriganko Dey & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Satyam Mukherjee Mr. P. S. Ghosh Mr. Saibal Rakshit …for the petitioner Mr. Asish Kumar Guha Mr. Sanjib Das …for the State Petitioners approached this Court praying for a direction upon the authorities under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to rectify the alleged erroneous recording in the Record of Rights. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated December 23, 2025. Learned advocate appearing for the State raises an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. Faced with such situation the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2 respondent authorities may be directed to take steps to remove the encroachment made by the private- respondents upon the PWD road just in front of the property of the petitioners thereby obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioners from their property to the PWD road. On a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, submits that no representation to that effect has been submitted by the petitioners before the concerned respondent authorities. He prays for a liberty to submit a representation to the concerned authority and for a direction upon the concerned authority to consider the same and take steps in accordance with law. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, this writ petition stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority on the issue of alleged encroachment upon the PWD road and, if such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall take steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 3 It is, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the issue relating to the alleged erroneous recording in the Record of Rights in respect of the property in question. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)