18.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.2 akd W. P. A. 20719 of 2026 [Mehbub Halder & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Bidish Ghosh Mr. Sanatan Panja … … for the petitioners Mr. Pankaj Halder Mr. Protim Chakraborty … for respondent nos.8 & 9 Mr. Asim Hati Mr. Amit Dey … … for the State 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the legality and/or propriety of the order dated July 2, 2025 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, the order dated September 1, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, and the notice dated August 5, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Joynagar Sub- Division, Public Works Department (in short, ‘PWD’). 2. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that respondent no. 8, namely, Jiyaul Mallick (in short, ‘Jiyaul’), submitted a complaint before the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer alleging that the petitioners herein had encroached upon land belonging to the PWD. The said land was classified as ‘Nayanjuli’. Thereafter, alleging inaction in considering the said representation, respondent nos. 8 and 9 moved a writ petition being WPA 26997 of 2024 (Jiyaul Mallick & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated November 20, 2024, directing the jurisdictional Block Land and 2 Land Reforms Officer (in short, ‘BL&LRO’) to conduct a physical inspection of the alleged encroachment and construction made by the petitioners herein, upon notice to the petitioners and respondent nos. 8 and 9. The BL&LRO was further directed to furnish the report to the petitioners, respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein, and the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, upon perusal of the report, the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer concluded that the petitioners herein had encroached upon land belonging to the PWD. 3. The matter was referred to the jurisdictional Sub- Divisional Officer and, after completion of the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (in short, ‘the 1964 Act’), an order was passed directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act was preferred before the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas. Record reveals that, by order dated September 1, 2025, the said appeal was dismissed. 5. Given the situation, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, as noted previously, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Joynagar Sub-Division, PWD, the order passed by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 1964 Act, and the subsequent notice whereby the petitioners were directed to remove the encroachment. 6. Mr. Sudip Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that, by the order dated November 20, 2024 passed in WPA 26997 of 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court 3 specifically directed the jurisdictional BL&LRO to conduct a physical inspection and submit a report. However, in the present case, the physical inspection was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Lalpur Gram Panchayat. Therefore, according to him, the order dated November 20, 2024 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. 7. Referring to the communication dated May 19, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Joynagar Sub-Division, PWD, addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolkata, Mr. Ghosh submits that, in order to arrive at a decision as to whether there was any encroachment, the Assistant Engineer had called for certain documents, namely, the LA Map, Awardee List, Gazette Notification and Possession Certificate. However, without perusing or considering the said documents, the Assistant Engineer passed the order. 8. Mr. Ghosh further submits that, by the order dated November 20, 2024, it was directed that the report of the BL&LRO be furnished to the petitioners and respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein, who were the petitioners in WPA 26997 of 2024. However, the said report has not been furnished to the petitioners or respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein. He further submits that these facts were brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas. However, the District Magistrate glossed over the said issue and arrived at an erroneous finding. He submits that these events have caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. 9. Mr. Asim Hati, learned Advocate representing the State/respondents, vehemently opposes the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that the 4 petitioners are the owners of land being L.R. Plot No. 747. However, from the report, as appearing at page 26 of the writ petition, it will appear that the L.R. Plot was divided into two parts and one Bata plot was created, which was renumbered as Plot No. 747/889. The Plot No. 747/889 was amalgamated with 17 other plots and renumbered as L.R. Plot No. 570, having an area of 138 decimals. The said land was classified as ‘Nayanjuli’ and recorded in favour of the PWD. During physical inspection, it was found that the persons named in the said report had encroached upon the land belonging to the PWD and made construction thereon. For removal of such unauthorized encroachment, steps have been taken in compliance with the order of this Court and due process has been followed. There is no infirmity in the decision-making process. 10. Mr. Pankaj Halder, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 8 and 9, submits that, although Plot No. 747 was divided and a new Bata plot was created, no demarcation has been made. Hence, the Assistant Engineer felt it necessary to consult the LA Map and other documents, as mentioned in his communication dated May 19, 2026. He further submits that the decision regarding the alleged encroachment should be taken after considering those documents. He also submits that the matter may be remitted back to the District Magistrate, with a direction to revisit the issue and take a decision after considering the said documents. 11. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 12. Undisputedly, by an order dated 20.11.2024 passed in WPA 26997 of 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed 5 the jurisdictional BL&LRO to conduct a physical inspection of the alleged encroachment and construction. However, the physical inspection was conducted by the Revenue Inspector. The language used in the order dated 20.11.2024 does not indicate that the Bench intended that the physical inspection be conducted personally by the BL&LRO. The LR Manual prescribes that the work assigned to the BL&LRO may also be performed by the Revenue Inspector. Therefore, for this reason alone, I am unable to concur with the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that there has been any infirmity in the decision-making process. 13. However, from the order passed by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, it appears that the District Magistrate perused and considered the report submitted by the BL&LRO. Thus, the order indicates that, although the inspection was conducted by the concerned Revenue Inspector, the report was submitted by the BL&LRO. However, the order of the District Magistrate does not reflect whether the LA Map or the other documents referred to in the communication dated May 19, 2026 were considered or not. It also does not reflect whether those documents and the report of the B.L. & L.R.O. were supplied to the petitioners before taking up the appeal for hearing. 14. Therefore, in order to remove any confusion, the order dated September 1, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, is set aside. The subsequent notice dated May 19, 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Joynagar Sub- Division, PWD, is also set aside. 6 15. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, and Appeal No. 11/Eviction/HW/District Magistrate/S-24 Parganas of 2025-2026 is revived. 16. The District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas, shall pass a reasoned order after taking into consideration the LA Map, Awardee List, Gazette Notification and Possession Certificate, as referred to in the communication dated May 19, 2026, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 17. If the said District Magistrate finds that there is an encroachment upon land being L.R. Plot No. 570 and that, for such reason, the proprietary rights of the petitioners and respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein have not been infringed upon, he shall take steps for removal of the encroachment from the land belonging to the PWD, in accordance with law. 18. It is clarified that there is no requirement to hand over the documents, namely, the LA Map, Awardee List, Gazette Notification and Possession Certificate, either to the petitioners or to respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein. However, before taking any decision in terms of the direction contained hereinabove, the District Magistrate shall ensure that the report of the B.L. & L.R.O. is furnished to the petitioners as well as the private respondents herein. 19. With these observations and directions, WPA 20719 of 2016 is disposed of. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 21. 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.)