14.07.2026 Item No.08 Ct. No. 19 PG WPA 13639 of 2026 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 Tanmay Dutta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas Ms. Jyoti Agarwala……….for the petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Akash Adak …..for the State Mr. Sayan Banerjee …….for the respondent nos. 10 to 14 Md. Asif Iqbal……………..for the applicant in I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 1. This is an application at the instance of one Surjendu Ghosh Chowdhury. 2. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to the prayers made in the instant writ petition. It is submitted that from the prayer of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of appropriate writ/writs 2 commanding the respondent authorities to remove unauthorised encroachment from the Government land being L.R. Plot No. 9117 in Mouza-Barnia under Police Station- Palashipara. 3. Drawing attention to page 26 of the instant application, it is submitted that from the copy of the said document, it would reveal that the present applicant was permitted to carry on trade over L.R. Plot No. 9117 and on perusal of the last but one page of the instant application, it would reveal that pursuant to an order dated 19.04.2011, as passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. 9661(W) of 2010, Tehatta No. 2 Panchayat Samity granted license to the present applicant to collect tax and revenue. 4. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the subject-matter of the instant writ petition involves L.R. Plot No. 9117, wherein the present applicant is carrying on his business, he is a necessary and proper party in the instant writ petition and thus, the instant application for addition of party/respondent may be allowed. 5. Such prayer is vehemently opposed on behalf of the writ petitioner. It is argued that from 3 the demarcation report dated 21.01.2026, as prepared by the BL &LRO, Tehatta-II, Palashipara, Nadia, it would reveal that at the time of field verification, the said BL&LRO noted the details of the encroachers, who are obstructing the easy egress and ingress of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 9116 in the self-same mouza and thus, only those encroachers are necessary and proper parties in the instant writ petition and thus by no stretch of imagination, the present applicant being Surjendu Ghosh Chowdhury can be said to be a necessary party. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner thus, submits that it is a fit case for rejecting the interlocutory application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026. 7. While adopting the argument of Mr. Atis Kr. Biswas, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State also opposes the prayer for addition of party, as made by the applicant. 8. It is submitted that from the said demarcation report, it would reveal that L.R. Plot No. 9117 is recorded in L.R. Khatian No.1 in favour of Collector. 4 9. It is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharjee that no panchayat samity is authorised to issue license to carry on trade over a Government land unless the said panchayat/panchayat samity obtains specific permission from the Government. 10. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 may be dismissed. 11. On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court, it appears that by filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for removal of encroachment, as allegedly made by the private respondent nos. 9 to 14 in L.R. Plot No. 9117, which is situated in front of writ petitioner’s plot being L.R. Plot No. 9116 in Mouza-Barnia since from the demarcation report of the jurisdictional BL&LRO those private respondents are found to be in encroachment of a portion of L.R. Plot No. 9117 just in front of the writ petitioner’s land being L.R. Plot No. 9116. 12. Such being the position, this Court finds that the present applicant is not at all a necessary party/respondent in the instant writ petition. 5 13. With the aforementioned observation, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed. W.P.A. 13639 of 2026 14. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically against the respondent no. 3 authority commanding him to remove the unauthorized encroachment made by the private respondent nos. 9 to 14 on the road side Government land being L.R. Dag No. 9117, Khatian No. 1, J.L. No. 26, Mouza-Barnia within Police Station- Palashipara in front of the land of the petitioner situated at L.R. Dag No. 9116, Khatian No. 9312, J.L. No. 26, Mouza-Barnia within Police Station-Palashipara.. 15. At the time of hearing, Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner again draws attention of this Court to page no. 81 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the demarcation report of the jurisdictional BL&LRO. It is submitted that from the said demarcation report dated 21.01.2026, it would reveal that the private 6 respondents are found to be in unauthorised occupation in L.R. Plot No. 9117, which is a Government land and recorded in the name of the Collector and their unauthorised occupation is creating problem in getting easy access to the writ petitioner’s property being L.R. Plot No. 9116, which is adjacent to L.R. Plot No. 9117. 16. At this juncture, attention of this Court is drawn to sections 3 and 4 of the Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (‘Act of 1962’ in short). It is submitted that it is the legislative mandate that in the event, the respondent no. 3 authority being a Collector within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the Act of 1962 is of opinion upon an information received otherwise that the public land is in unauthorised occupation of any person or persons, he is duty bound to issue a notice to show cause and in the event such cause is not shown and/or in the event the cause shown is not sufficient, he is under obligation to pass an order of eviction under section 4 of the Act of 1962. 17. It is, thus, submitted that in view of such settled position of law, the jurisdictional SDO may be directed to remove the encroachment 7 after compliance of sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1962 upon the private respondents. 18. Such prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate for the private respondents by stating that they are the lawful tenants under one Surjendu Ghosh Chowdhury. 19. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State in his usual fairness, submits before this Court that the jurisdictional SDO may be directed to act in accordance with law. 20. On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that L.R. Plot No. 9117 in Mouza-Barnia is a Government land and recorded in the name of the Collector and the demarcation report dated 21.01.2026, as issued by the jurisdictional BL&LRO clearly reflects the name of the private respondents as unauthorised occupants. 21. Such being the position, this Court, while disposing the instant writ petition, directs the respondent no. 3 authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with section 3 of the Act 8 of 1962 upon all encroachers of L.R. Plot No. 9117 including the private respondents and in the event the respondent no. 3 is not satisfied with the replies to such show cause and/or in the event no reply/replies is/are received within the stipulated period, he is directed to initiate a process for eviction under section 4 of the Act of 1962 after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. 22. The entire exercise, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs is to be completed within 90 working days from the date of communication of server copy of this order. 23. Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record of the writ petitioner to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 3 authority, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order. 24. With the aforementioned observations/ directions the instant writ petition is disposed of. 25. It is, however, made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the instant writ petition and thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no. 3 authority. 9 26. 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.)