14.07.2026 Item No.27 Ct. No. 19 RP WPA/14978/2026 JULFIKKAR SARKAR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal Mr. Hamidur Rahaman Mr. Saikat Gayen Mr. Parvej Islam …For Petitioner Mrs. Soma Chowdhury Bandhu Mr. Anurag Chatterjee Mr. Ranajit Dutta …For Respondent No.7 Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee Mr. Snehansu Majumdar …For State 1. The writ petitioner and the respondent State are represented by their respective counsel. 2. At the time of hearing the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner files affidavit-of-service, which is taken on record. 3. By filing this instant writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically the respondent no.3 2 authority, commanding him to take appropriate steps for removal of unauthorized encroachment as allegedly made by the private respondent no.7 in front of the writ petitioner’s property, the particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the instant writ petition. 4. At the time of hearing the learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the writ petitioner is the owner of a portion of a plot of land, being plot no.16 in Mouza- Godhanpara under P.S.-Raninagar, District-Murshidabad. 5. It is submitted further that it is the further case of the writ petitioner that the private respondent initially encroached a portion of the PWD land. However, on account of widening of the said road the writ petitioner’s encroachment was removed. It is further contended that it is the specific 3 case of the writ petitioner that soon thereafter the private respondent again encroached a portion of the PWD land by the side of the writ petitioner’s property, as a result whereof the writ petitioner is facing difficulty to use the aforementioned land in an appropriate way. 6. It is further submitted that by way of a representation dated 07.06.2026 the writ petitioner ventilated his grievance with the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that on receipt of the said representation the respondent no.5 authority has taken an initiative for demarcation of the disputed land as would be evident from the memo dated 24.06.2026, a copy of which has been filed before this Court, which is taken on record. 7. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that an appropriate relief 4 or reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Such prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.7 by saying that the private respondent no.7 is also the owner of plot no.16. It is, thus, submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the private respondent no.7 is an illegal occupier and/or encroacher of the PWD land. 9. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State in his usual fairness submits that the respondent no.3 may be directed to consider the representation dated 07.06.2026 as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law. 10. On careful perusal of the entire material as placed before this Court and after giving due consideration over the submissions made on behalf of the 5 contending parties, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent no.5 authority to complete the demarcation process as has been initiated by him as would be evident from the memo dated 24.06.2026 after giving prior notice to the writ petitioner and the respondent no.7 and shall submit a demarcation report with the respondent no.3 authority positively within thirty (30) working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 11. The respondent no.3 authority on receipt of the demarcation report from the respondent no.5 authority shall cause service of notice upon the petitioner and the private respondents and shall provide them copies of the demarcation report as would be submitted by the respondent no.5 authority. The respondent no.3 is 6 further directed to consider the representation dated 07.06.2026 as submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the demarcation report as would be submitted by the respondent no.5 authority and after giving due chance of hearing to the writ petitioner and the private respondents and/or their authorized representatives, shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same both to the writ petitioner and the private respondents. 12. The entire exercise as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs is to be completed within 45 working days from the date of receipt of the report from the respondent no.5 authority. 13. The time limit as fixed by this Court is peremptory and mandatory. 14. The learned advocate-on-record of the writ petitioner is directed to communicate the server copy of this 7 order to the respondent nos.3 and 5 authority, who are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. 15. It is further directed that in the event the respondent no.3 authority while passing the reasoned order finds sufficient justification in the representation of the writ petitioner he is directed to take all consequential action forthwith. 16. With the aforementioned observations the instant writ petition is disposed of. 17. Before parting with, it is made clear that while disposing the writ petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the representation dated 07.06.2026 as submitted by the writ petitioner before the respondent authorities. Thus, all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent no.3 authority. 8 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)