21.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.6 akd W. P. A. 21777 of 2026 [Salma Begam & Anr. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Anirban Das … … for the petitioners Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Roy Mr. Surajit Singh … … for the State 1. Fundamentally, the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the justifiability of the notice dated 5th August, 2026, issued by respondent no. 7, directing the petitioners to remove/demolish/abate the structures/obstructions to the satisfaction of the Highway Officer on or before 17th August, 2026. 2. Mr. Anirban Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners jointly purchased parcels of land from Plot No. 2956 of Mouza – Salar, J.L. No. 14, P.S. Kandi, District Murshidabad. He further submits that a parcel of land was also granted as Patta in favour of one of the petitioners from Plot No. 2958. He submits that subsequently, on suspicion that the petitioners had encroached upon the land belonging to the P.W. (Roads), the Assistant Engineer, Mayurakshi Bridge Highway Sub-Division, P.W. (Roads) Directorate, undertook a demarcation process and, upon completion thereof, issued a notice under Section 10(1) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (in short, ‘the 1964 Act’). It has been submitted by Mr. Das that no inspection report was handed over to the petitioners and that only one schedule was referred to in the said notice; however, no schedule was appended to the 2 said notice. According to Mr. Das, for these reasons the notice dated 5th August, 2026, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, vehemently opposes the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that the entire demarcation process was conducted in the presence of the petitioners and that they were very much aware that they had encroached upon the land belonging to P.W. (Roads). Therefore, according to him, the notice dated 5th August, 2026, has been rightly issued by the Assistant Engineer under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act. Mr. Roy further submits that the present writ petition is nothing but a desperate attempt by the petitioners to save their unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to P.W. (Roads). 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the materials on record. 5. Undisputedly, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act, the Assistant Engineer undertook the physical enquiry and demarcation process. As noted earlier, upon conclusion of such process, it was detected that the petitioners, along with some other persons, had encroached upon certain portions of the land belonging to P.W. (Roads). Accordingly, as per the provisions of law, the Assistant Engineer issued the notice dated 5th August, 2026, asking the encroachers, including the petitioners, to remove the encroachment and their structures. If the petitioners fail to remove the encroachment, a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the 1964 Act can be initiated. It is expected that, if such proceeding is initiated by the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate, 3 an opportunity must be afforded to the petitioners to defend themselves and justify their occupation. It is also expected that all relevant documents shall be furnished to the petitioners. 6. At this stage, I do not find any justification to interfere in the present writ petition, and accordingly, WPA 21777 of 2026 stands dismissed. 7. However, it is clarified that if any proceeding is initiated under Section 10(3) of the 1964 Act, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the issues that they are entitled to raise before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)