Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27127 (CAL)

HARENDRA NATH NASKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

WPA/10084/2014 · 2026-07-08

Partha Sarathi Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

08.07.2026 Item No.3 Ct. No.19 KS W.P.A. 10084 of 2014 Harendra Nath Naskar, since deceased, represented by his legal heirs, Smt. Sabita Bala Naskar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kr. Maiti Ms. Maitrayee Maiti …..For the Petitioners Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, S.S.C. Ms. Joyita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar …..For the State 1. The writ petitioners and the respondent/State are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that during pendency of this instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has died and one substitution application has been filed but the same is yet to be disposed of. 3. However, on perusal of the instant file it reveals that such application for substitution has already been disposed of and to that effect, necessary endorsement has been made by the Department on 07.02.2020. In the second phase, this Court asks the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as to 2 whether apart from respondent/State, any other respondent is there or not. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners with responsibility submitted before this Court that apart from respondent/State, no other respondents are there. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners took me to page no.38 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the representation dated 17.01.2003 addressed to the Chairman, West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. This Court fails to understand as to how the said Corporation becomes an instrumentality of this State especially when it is a separate entity and a creature of a statute. 6. None appears on behalf of the HIDCO and its instrumentality. 7. On perusal of the prayer of the instant writ petition, this Court finds that the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically, against the respondent nos.4 and 5 authorities commanding them not to take forceful 3 possession of the petitioner’s land being Plot No.1109 and 1111, J.L. No.25, Mouza – Kadampukur under Rajarhat Police Station, District – North 24 Parganas save and except due process of law. 8. On perusal of Page No.38 of the instant writ petition, it reveals that a representation was submitted by some of the persons. 9. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitioner is a Raiyat in respect of the lands, particulars of which, has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition. 10. Such being the position, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent no.5 authority to consider a copy of the instant writ petition as a representation of the writ petitioners. 11. This Court further directs the respondent no.5 authority to give a fair chance of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or their authorized representative and thereafter, shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law on the representation of the writ petitioners positively within 60 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order together with a copy of the instant writ 4 petition alongwith all annexures and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioners. 12. The time-limit, as fixed by this Court, is peremptory and mandatory. 13. In the event, the respondent no.5 while passing the reasoned order noticed that the acquisition proceedings has already been completed, such factum has also to be communicated to the writ petitioners. 14. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Since, no affidavit has been called for, the allegation made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 16. Liberty is given to communicate the server copy of this order together with a copy of the writ petition to the respondent no.5, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)