17.07.2026 Item No.5 Ct. No.19 KS W.P.A. 1558 of 2026 Smt. Dipali Rani Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay Mr. Arjun Samanta Ms. Trishtrya Mancherji ….. For the Petitioner Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee …..For the State 1. The parties are represented through their respective learned counsel. 2. The subject-matter of the instant writ petition is the impugned notice dated 28.08.2025 as issued by the respondent no.7 authority under Section 3 of the Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 (“Act of 1962”, in short). 3. On perusal of the impugned notice, it reveals that the respondent no.7 authority in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1962 directed all concerned to appear before him on a particular day and hour to show cause as to why an order under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, 1962 would not be passed. 4. In course of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the respondent no.7 authority has no authority to issue to such impugned notice in view of the fact that the writ petitioner has absolute right, title and interest 2 over the plot in question, as has been mentioned in the said notice. 5. It is further submitted that in an earlier round of litigation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A. 20095 of 2024 (Smt. Dipali Rani Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) while dismissing the said writ petition, permitted the writ petitioner to challenge the decision of the UDMA in an appropriate proceeding. It is submitted that the said writ petition was filed before the Co-ordinate Bench, since the respondent authorities of the said writ petition declined to effect mutation in respect of plot in question in the name of the writ petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that challenging the said order dated 25.09.2025 as passed in W.P.A. 20095 of 2025, the writ petitioner preferred an intra-Court appeal. It is, thus, submitted that in such factual position, there cannot be any occasion to issue the impugned notice. 7. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent/State also places his reliance upon the judgment and order dated 25.09.2025, as passed by the said Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.A. 20095 of 2025. It is submitted that it was the specific stand of the State in the said writ petition that the land in question already stood vested with the State. 3 8. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, this Court proposes to look to Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act of 1962. “3. Issue of notice to show cause against order for eviction of unauthorised occupant from public land- (1) If, in respect of any public land, the Collector is of opinion, upon application made by an officer of the owner of the public land authorised in this behalf by such owner or upon information received otherwise, that the public land is in the unauthorised occupation of any person or persons, the Collector shall issue [a notice in such from and containing such particulars as may be prescribed calling upon all person concerned] to show-cause before such date, not being less than fifteen days after the date of the notice, as may specified in the notice why an order under sub-section (1) of section 4 should not be made, and shall cause it to be served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2). Intimation of the date so specified shall be given to the owner of the pubic land and to its officer authorised under this sub-section. (2) A notice issued under sub-section (1) shall be served by affixing it on a conspicuous part of the public land concerned and in such other manner as may prescribed. (3) A notice served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been duly served. 4. Order of eviction of person in unauthorised occupation from public land.- (1) If after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice issued under section 3 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public land is in unauthoirsed occupation, he shall make an order of eviction directing all persons in such authorised occupation to vacate the public land and deliver possession thereof to owner within such time as may be specified in the order. (2) The Collector shall cause a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to be served in the manner referred to in sub- section (2) of section 3.” 9. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provisions, if I look to the factual aspect of the case it appears to this Court, that there cannot be any occasion on the part of the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition impugning the notice under Section 3 of the Act of 1962, since by the 4 impugned notice, no endeavour has been made by the respondent no.7 authority to evict the writ petitioner from the plot in question. On the other hand, it appears that the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent no.7 authority on a particular day and hour with a reply to the notice as to why an order of eviction under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1962 would not be passed. 10. On careful perusal of Section 4 of the Act of 1962, it further appears to this Court that the respondent no.7 authority after considering the cause shown by the writ petitioner and the evidence, if there be any, after giving an opportunity of hearing, shall pass the order of eviction, if he is at all satisfied that the public land is in unauthorized occupation. 11. This Court, thus, finds that the present writ petitioner is not at all remediless. He has every remedy to approach the respondent no.7 authority with the show-cause to substantiate that the land in question is not a public land and on the contrary, the same belongs to him. 12. It further appears to this Court that in the event, the writ petitioner is at all aggrieved with the decision of the respondent no.7 authority as would be passed under Section 4 of the Act of 1962, he has a remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 7 of the Act of 1962. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court considers that the instant writ petition is premature. 5 14. This Court further considers that no case has been made out on behalf of the writ petitioner that despite availability of efficacious, effective and statutory remedy as to why the writ petitioner has approached this Court. 15. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 16. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that in the event, the writ petitioner has submitted a show- cause with the respondent no.7 authority, in the meantime, the respondent no.7 authority is directed to give a fair chance of hearing to the writ petitioner and/or his authorized representative in a proceeding under Section 4 of the Act of 1962 and after considering the show-cause, shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law. 17. It is further made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim and thus all points are kept open. 18. 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.)