S/L 6 08.07.2026 Court No.7 SD CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FMA 34 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2024 Ashim Paul Vs. Ajut Md. & Ors. Mr. Partho Sarathi Deb Barman Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay Mr. Somojit Dutta Ms. Srishti Sarkar Ms. Payel Chanda Ms. Bipasha Mary … for the Appellant. Dr. Arjun Chowdhury Ms. Sunayana Parveen Ms. Riya Agarwala Mr. Mantu Mandal … for the Respondent Nos.1-4. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG Ms. Mrinmayee Das … for the State. 1. The order dated May 20, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 936 of 2024 filed by the private respondents herein is impugned in the instant appeal. 2. By the said order, the learned Single Judge directed consideration of the representation made by the private respondents before the Highway Authority for grant of temporary permit of encroachment of highway land. 3. The appellant herein filed an earlier writ petition being WPA 606 of 2024 alleging illegal unauthorized encroachment made by the private respondents herein over the State 2 Highway. The said writ petition stood disposed of by the learned Single Judge on April 9, 2024 by directing the authority to consider the representation made and if any encroachment is detected, steps to be taken to deal with the same in accordance with law within a stipulated time period. The private respondents herein were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition filed by the appellant. 4. Reliance has been placed on Section 8 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1964’) where there is a specific bar to encroach the highway without obtaining previous permission in writing. 5. It has been submitted that the Court ought not to have directed the authority to decide the issue of grant of temporary permit without ascertaining as to whether the encroachment was made upon obtaining previous permission in writing from the Highway Authority. 6. It has also been pointed out that the learned Single Judge was pleased not to stipulate any time period within which the authority ought to have taken steps. More 3 than two years have passed and no steps could be taken in the matter. The private respondents are enjoying the highway land by making unauthorized encroachment. 7. Learned counsel representing the private respondents submits that the appellant was aware that the private respondents raised construction encroaching the highway land. Despite having knowledge of the encroachment, the private respondents were not impleaded as parties in the first writ petition filed by the appellant being WPA 606 of 2024. 8. It has been submitted that the private respondents are poor businessmen who are maintaining their livelihood by raising temporary structures encroaching upon the highway land. 9. It has been submitted that prayer has been made before the authority for issuance of a permit so that they can run their business. 10. Learned AAAG appears on behalf of the State and submits that as the private parties failed to produce any previous permission in writing by the Highway Authority permitting them to make encroachment over the highway land, the 4 authority may be permitted to take steps to remove such unauthorized encroachment. 11. Upon hearing submissions made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that by the impugned order dated May 20, 2024, the learned Single Judge was pleased not to adjudicate any issue regarding unauthorized encroachment of highway land. 12. The Court merely relegated the matter to the competent authority for taking a decision with regard to the same. The authority at the time of taking steps in terms of the order dated May 20, 2024 would be required to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act of 1964. 13. The authority would be required to take a decision as to whether the encroachment, if any, had been made after obtaining previous permission in writing of the Highway Authority or any competent officer. Only if there is a previous permission in writing, then the question of granting permission in terms of Section 8(2) of the Act will arise. 14. The Court has not returned any finding either with regard to Section 8(1) or 5 Section 8(2) of the Act. The entire issue is open before the authority to take a decision on the matter in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. 15. For proper compliance of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge, the authority is directed to conduct a spot inspection upon prior notice to all the necessary parties to ascertain as to whether any encroachment has been made over the highway land or not and if encroachment is detected, whether such encroachment was made upon obtaining previous permission in writing of the Highway Authority. 16. Further necessary steps to deal with the unauthorized encroachment, if any, shall be taken in accordance with law. 17. Steps shall be taken in the matter at the earliest, but positively within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 18. The appeal along with the connected application stands disposed of. 19. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 6 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)