24.08.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 28 Sandip FMA 1226 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Sanat Kumar Naskar & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta, Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Mr. Chitrak Biswas, Ms. Juthika Barman …for the Appellants. Mr. Mir Anuruzzaman … for the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated May 06, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 16419 of 2024. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Court held that the allegation against the Municipality of drawing an underground pipeline by encroaching the land of the appellants, could not be established. 3. According to His Lordship, the disputed question of facts which arose on the basis of the report of the surveyor and that of the Special Officer appointed by the Court, gave rise to several issues, which could not be resolved in the writ proceeding. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the surveyor did not have any authority to prepare two site plans, one for site – A and one for Site – B. Moreover, as per the plan for Site A, the encroachment was evident, whereas, as per the site plan B, the area under occupation of the appellants were found to be much less than what was purchased by the Deed of conveyance. 5. Learned advocate for the Municipality has handed over a photograph to show that that pipeline was being constructed outside the boundary wall and did not cause any hindrance to the pre-existing construction of the appellants. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Alleging that the Municipality had started a construction of underground drainage system through the West North side of the land of the appellants, the appellants met the Chairman of the Municipality and raised various objections. Those objections were ignored. Thus, the writ Court was approached for necessary orders and directions upon the Municipality. By the order dated January 14, 2025, a learned single Judge found from the report submitted by the Municipality that the drainage and water pipeline was located outside the boundary wall of the plot of the appellants. In view of the dispute, a learned advocate was appointed as a Special Officer who was directed to inspect the premises in question with the assistance of a duly qualified surveyor, to determine whether the pipelines which had been laid by the Municipality, actually passed through the land of the appellants or not. 7. Pursuant to such direction, the learned advocate visited the premises in question for inspection. The appellant no. 2, the elder brother of the appellant no. 1, the Amin 2 who was brought for inspection by the appellants, the Assistant Engineer, Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality and the Surveyor, were present during such inspection. The Deed of conveyance was perused by the learned Special Officer. It transpired that although in the Deed of Conveyance, the road situated at the North and West of the plot of the appellants, was specified as 12 ft. wide, but physical verification and measurement of the road revealed that the same was 18 feet wide. The deed also recorded the breadth of the plot on the southern boundary to be 34 feet, whereas on verification it was found that the breadth was 31 ft. 8 inches. According to the learned Special Officer, there was a difference in the measurement of the length and breadth of the land, with the schedule of the deed. . 8. A qualified surveyor made an inspection and he had prepared two site plans in respect of the plot. As per the site plan A the measurement of the land was 2 kattah 3 chattaks as stated in the deed. According to the site plan B, measurement of the said plot is 1 kattah 12 chattak 12 sq. ft. 9. It was found that the construction was outside the boundary wall if the site plan B was taken to be correct, but within the land if site plan A was correct. His Lordship noted such discrepancy and held that such disputes could not be resolved by a writ Court. 10. In our view, the matter requires appreciation of evidence, and as such, the appropriate forum will be the civil Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and the 3 connected application, granting liberty to the appellants to take steps in accordance with law. 11. Although a question has been raised with regard to the correctness of the surveyor’s report, we find that the surveyor was appointed at the instance of the appellants by the writ Court. The appellants and/or their representatives were present during such survey. 12. A writ Court cannot decide whether the surveyor’s report is correct or not. The appellant will have to prove his right, title, interest and possession over the land as per the Deed of conveyance, before the appropriate forum. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4