08.07.2026 SL No.10 Court No.12 (gc/sk) MAT 1973 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Manija Bibi & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Mr. Md. Golam Nure Imrohi, Ms. Priti Barman, Mr. Partha Pratim Sinha …..for the Appellants. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh ….for the State. Mr. Uday Narayan Betal, Mr. Mriganka Patra ….for the Respondent nos. 10,12,13. Mr. Sunil Kr. Gupta ….for the Respondent no. 3. Re: CAN 2 of 2025 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 392 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Upon considering the averments made in Paragraphs 5 and 6, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 3. Moreover, considering the merits of the subject matter in dispute, we are of the view that the appellants have a fair chance in succeeding in the appeal. The appellants had alleged encroachment of the Highway by the private parties, which in turn, had obstructed the ingress and egress of the appellants to their premises. 4. In the first round of litigation, a learned Single Judge had directed that the Assistant Engineer, Islampur 2 Sub-Division should look into the allegations of encroachment of the Highway that was controlled by the PW (Roads) Directorate. From the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Raninagar – I Block, the Assistant Engineer found that the subject plot No. 53 was beside the P.W.D. Road and it belonged to the Murshidabad District Board. Accordingly, it was resolved that PW (Roads) Directorate was not the proper authority to initiate proceedings. The learned Judge, upon considering the above fact was of the view that the dispute should be decided by a competent Civil Court. 5. In our view, the order suffers from perversity and misappreciation of law and the appellants have a chance of success in the appeal. Under such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 6. The delay is condoned. 7. The appeal is registered. Re: MAT 1973 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 8. Affidavit of service is taken on record. 9. Mr. Betal, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.10, 12 and 13 submits that the learned Judge did not commit any error of law in holding that the remedy of the appellants was before a competent Civil Court. It is further submitted that part of the subject plot, belongs to the appellants. The appellants had 3 purchased the same. Secondly, once the PWD authorities had decided the matter, inter alia, holding that the construction was not on a highway, but on a land beside the Highway, the matter deserved a closure. No further order could have been passed in the writ petition. 10. From the documents and the resolution adopted at a hearing dated September 29, 2021, we find that the PW(Roads) Directorate could not take steps, as the alleged constructions were on a land beside the PWD road and the land belonged to Murshidabad District Board. 11. We are of the view that, when it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the land belonged to Murshidabad District Board and the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad is now in control of such land, the writ petition could not have been dismissed by relegating the appellants to a Civil Court. We find that P.W.(Roads) Directorate, upon making an enquiry into the matter had arrived at a conclusion that, as per the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Raninagar-I Block dated September 28, 2021, and the information given by the representative of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer at the said hearing, Plot No.53, Khatian No.43, Mouza – Arizpur was beside the Highway/PWD Road and under the Murshidabad District Board. 4 12. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge ought to have referred the matter to the appropriate authority under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, in order to ascertain whether any construction had been done on a government land or not. In the event any construction was detected on government land, steps must be taken for removal of such encroachments. 13. The contention of Mr. Betal that his clients had also purchased part of Plot No.53 and had constructed within that area, shall be decided by the authority at the appropriate stage. 14. Under such circumstances, the appeal is allowed. 15. The order impugned is set aside. 16. The Murshidabad Zilla Parishad will forward the complaint of the appellants which is at page 62 of the connected application within three weeks, to the appropriate authority under the law and the authority shall act and proceed independently, impartially and strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in the relevant statute. Before any decision is taken, the authority concerned will ensure demarcation of the land, insofar as, the construction of the parties are concerned as it has been urged that even appellants have also constructed their premises upon encroaching government land. 5 17. A reasoned order shall be passed and steps shall be taken in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of the complaint filed by the appellants before the Zilla Parishad. 18. The authority will decide all the aspects independently. As we have not called for any affidavits the factual aspects of the matter are left open, for a decision by the appropriate authority. . 19. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 20. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)