36 jdt. 07.07.2026 jb. WPA 6245 of 2026 (Sk Mojapfor Rahaman vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Debajyoti Basu Reshmi Hossain Ms. Sharbari Majumder Mr. Rik Mukherjee …. For the Petitioner Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Subhajit Das …. For the State Mr. Abhrajit Mitra Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay Mr. Soumyadeb Sinha Ms. Abhismita Goswami …. For the Respondent no. 8 Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee …. For the Respondent no. 9 Raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for the 8th respondent submits that the petitoiner has contended that the act and conduct of the Government and the private respondent amount to infringement of the long established easement right of path/passage through the public road. Learned counsel submits that the issue of easement of the petitioner, as alleged, cannot be dealt with in a writ petition and needs to be relegated to the appropriate civil forum. This Court agrees with the submission on behalf of the private respondent. The issue with regard to such encroachment of easement right/right of passage of the petitioner shall be dealt with by the appropriate civil 2 forum. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the said forum for redressal of his grievance. There is another aspect of the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that though sanctioned building plan was granted in favour of the private respondent in respect of the dag nos. 4292/5210(P), 4292/5211(P),4327(P),4291(P), 4392(P), 4294(P),4295(P) in Mouza Matiagacha and dag no. 875(P) in Mouza Kamduni, the private respondent is constructing a commercial complex in dag nos. 873 and 874 in Mouza Kamduni and plot no. 4293 in Mouza Matiagacha. In response to an application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has informed that plot nos. 873 and 874 are vested as per L. R. record of rights. The petitioner has submitted several representations before the concerned authority ventilating his grievance which have fallen on deaf ears. The petitioner seeks consideration of the same. Denying such allegation, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the construction is being raised strictly in terms of the sanctioned building plan granted in favour of the said respondent. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the plot nos. 874 and 875 are Sali land. The contention of the parties need to be verified by the appropriate authority. Since the representations 3 submitted by the petitioner before the authority are pending, the Sabhadhipati, , North 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad, being the 5th respondent herein, is directed to take necessary steps to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and the private respondent, in accordance with law. The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the parties within a week thereof. In the event the construction raised by the private respondent is found to be illegal/unauthorised, the concerned authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)