20.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.4 akd W. P. A. 21639 of 2026 [Mahadeb Das -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Agniswar Bhuinya … … for the petitioner Mr. Kamal Mishra … … for respondent no. 9 Mr. Dibasis Basu .. ld. A.G.P. Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar … … for the State 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality and/or propriety of the order dated August 4, 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur, under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (in short, ‘the 1964 Act’). 2. Mr. Agniswar Bhuinya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him. Therefore, the order dated August 4, 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, cannot be sustained in law. In support of such contention, he has referred to a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 19460 of 2023 (Ahmed Hossain Ali Shah vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 3. Mr. Kamal Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 9, vehemently opposes such contention. He submits that, in the earlier round of litigation, the respondent no. 9 had moved a writ petition, inter alia, alleging therein that the present writ petitioner had encroached upon land belonging 2 to the Public Works Department (in short, ‘PWD’). The said writ petition, being WPA 29226 of 2025, was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated January 14, 2026, directing the Assistant Engineer, Tamluk Highway Division, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Tamluk, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated September 24, 2025, after making necessary enquiries and carrying out demarcation through the competent authority. The Bench further directed that, upon making necessary enquiry and demarcation through the competent authority, if any encroachment upon the PWD road was found, steps in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the 1964 Act should be initiated and the entire exercise under the said provision should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Mr. Mishra further submits that, pursuant to the said order, an enquiry was conducted and demarcation of the land was carried out in the presence of the writ petitioner. During such enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had encroached upon the land belonging to P.W. (Roads) and had constructed a building thereon. He further submits that the said enquiry report was sent to the Assistant Engineer and thereafter to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and thereafter sought adjournment on fifteen occasions. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Mishra that an intra-court appeal, being MAT 672 of 2026, has also been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated January 14, 2026, 3 passed in WPA 29226 of 2025. However, nowhere in the writ petition has it been mentioned that the said intra-court appeal is pending before a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Mr. Mishra submits that, without pursuing the said intra-court appeal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated August 4, 2026, passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur, under Section 10(3) of the 1964 Act. In such conspectus, according to him, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. Record reveals that, in compliance with the order dated January 14, 2026, passed in WPA 29226 of 2025, necessary enquiry was conducted and demarcation was also carried out. Subsequently, a proceeding under Section 10 of the 1964 Act was initiated. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also initiated a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the 1964 Act and concluded the same by passing an order directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. However, without preferring any statutory appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act before the appellate authority, the present writ petition has been preferred. 8. This Court is of the opinion that, as the statute prescribes an efficacious alternative remedy and the present writ petition has been preferred without exhausting such remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from preferring an appeal challenging the order 4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act, if so advised, in accordance with law. 10. With these observations and directions, WPA 21639 of 2026 is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. 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.)