28.08.2026 Ct. No.236 D/L.01 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 16388 of 2025 Mainul Islam & Anr Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Kaberi Ghosh (Dey) Mr. Sujit Chowdhury …..for the Petitioners 1. Affidavit-of-service, filed by the learned advocate in Court today, is taken on record. 2. None appears for the State respondents and the respondent no. 10 in spite of service. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners, by filing this writ petition, has challenged an order dated 23rd of May, 2023 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad, in connection with a proceeding under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, regarding eviction and removal of unauthorized constructions against the encroacher- occupants on a public road. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the private respondent no. 10, in 2019, filed a writ petition being WP No. 20822 (W) of 2019 challenging, inter alia, the unauthorized construction made by the petitioners over a 2 ‘nayanjuli’, which according to him is a public property belonging to the PWD. 5. A coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 19th November, 2019, directed the respondent no. 2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioners/private respondent no. 10 herein after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondent no. 10. 6. Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed by the private respondent no. 10 for implementation of such direction. 7. Pursuant to a direction passed by this Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Domkol, passed an order dated 28th October, 2021 under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 against the petitioners. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28th October, 2021, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad. Finally, by an order dated 9th November, 2022, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA No. 22998 of 2022, the respondent no. 9 was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners herein under Section 104 of the said Act of 1964. 3 9. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 23rd May, 2023, their shop had been demolished. 10. She further submits that there is no illegality or procedural impropriety in the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2023 as adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the order dated 23rd May, 2023, by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad. 11. The only grievance of the petitioners as of now is that in the said order dated 23rd May, 2023, the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad, arrived at a finding, which is as follows: “On the other hand, the petitioner, Nabiul Islam, also admitted that he occupied the roadside PWD land & currently started to make construction on it which is also in front of above stated plot of land & the AE, PWD, Berhampore, SD-III, also concented the same in the hearing.” 12. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that till date no step in connection with such observation has been taken and the private respondent has been allowed to run his business from the said construction, which according to the District Magistrate, was unauthorized. 4 13. In view of the above, I direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and in view of the observations made by the District Magistrate and Collector, Murshidabad. Before taking any coercive steps, the respondent authorities shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of. 15. No order as to costs. 16. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. < (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)