IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 09.09.26 Item No.7 Sws.M WPA 15089 of 2026 Dibyarchan Ballav & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arun Naskar …for the petitioner Mr. Sujit Bhunia Mr. Subhomoy Paul ….for the State 1. The affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioners, is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has filed an instruction, which is taken on record. 3. The writ petitioners and the respondents/ State are represented by their respective learned counsel. 4. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs against the respondent/authorities, more specifically against the respondent No. 2/authority commanding him to quash and/or cancel the reasoned order dated 22.12.2025 as passed by him (respondent No. 2). 5. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, some relevant facts are required to be dealt with and those are as under :- 2 (i) In an earlier round of litigation being WPA 7678 of 2024, at the instance of the present writ petitioners, the writ petitioners complained that their land situated at LR Plot No. 2829 in Mouza – Manoharpur under Police Station – Dankuni Coal Complex, District – Hooghly has been utilized for the construction of Dankuni Housing Complex without taking any steps for acquisition. (ii) Considering the grievance of the writ petitioners, this Court in the said earlier round of litigation being WPA 7678 of 2024 passed an order dated 08.05.2025 directing the respondent No. 3/authority therein to pass a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and also after obtaining a demarcation report from the jurisdictional BL&LRO. (iii) Admittedly, the jurisdictional BL&LRO make a field verification upon service of prior notice upon the writ petitioners and the representatives of the Housing Department of the Government of West Bengal and submitted a demarcation report with the respondent No.3/authority herein. 3 (iv) The respondent No. 3/authority as per direction passed by this Court on 08.05.2025 in WPA 7678 of 2024 gave opportunity of inspection of the said demarcation report of the jurisdictional BL&LRO to the writ petitioners and thereafter proceeded to pass a reasoned order dated 22.12.2025, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. (v) While passing the impugned reasoned order dated 22.12.2025, the respondent No. 3/authority came to a factual finding that in respect of the aforementioned plot of land, one land acquisition proceeding was initiated being LA Case No. 1-7/85-86 wherein compensation was awarded to the owners of the acquired land and the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ petitioners, being one of the awardee also received such compensation. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in course of his submission strongly criticizes the finding of the respondent No. 3/authority as observed in his impugned reasoned order dated 22.12.2025. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that on perusal of the internal page No. 4 and 5 of the said reasoned order, it would reveal that 4 the respondent No. 3/authority most mechanically stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners was the awardee of the compensation, however, the particulars of the compensation has not been disclosed in such reasoned order. It is further argued that the respondent No. 3/authority while passing the impugned reasoned order is duty bound to indicate the quantum of compensation and the relevant cheque numbers and date through which such compensation has been allegedly paid. 7. It is thus submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the fitness of the case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed and the writ petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sujit Bhunia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supports the impugned order. It is argued that while passing the impugned order, the respondent No.3/authority had categorically indicated that the property in question has been acquired in connection with the land acquisition case, wherein compensation has been awarded to the different awardee whose names were recorded in the Record of Rights. It is further submitted that in the reasoned order it has also been categorically indicated that the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ petitioner 5 was one of the awardee and thus received the compensation. 9. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that in this second round of litigation, the petitioners had taken a complete contrary stand as have been taken by them in the first round of litigation. This Court has noticed that in the earlier round of litigation being WPA 7678 of 2024, it was the case of the writ petitioners that a substantial portion of the land of the petitioners was utilized for the purpose of a Housing Project without disbursing any compensation. However, after passing of the reasoned order, the writ petitioners in this writ petition took a contrary stand that the amount of compensation as has been allegedly received by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners has not been disclosed and the details of the cheque has also not been furnished. 10. In this writ petition, this Court finds no averment at all on the part of the writ petitioners that the reasoned order as passed by the respondent No. 3/authority is based on no document and/or fabricated document. 11. It appears to this Court rather that the respondent No. 3/authority on the basis of the records of the 6 relevant LA Case record came to a factual finding that the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ petition received due compensation. 12. This Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction finds no reason to interfere with such factual finding in absence of any material to show that such factual finding of the respondent No. 3 is either perverse and/or based on no materials. 13. It is trite that in a judicial review a writ court cannot take a contrary view only because another view is possible. 14. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)