25 jdt. 14.09.2026 jb. WPA 20829 of 2026 [Shubhankar Samanta vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Supratim Dhar Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal Ms. Payel Khanra …. For the Petitioner Ms. Tapasi Palit Sinha Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay …. For the State Mr. Raj Kr. Sain …. For the Respondent no. 12 Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner alleges that though the private respondent has been granted sanctioned building plan for construction in plot nos. 1944 and 1945 he is raising construction in plot nos. 1944 and 1932. Portion of plot nos. 1944 and 1945 belongs to the private respondent and the petitioner is a co-sharer in respect of plot nos. 1932 and 1944. Also, the land belongs to the Haldia Development Authority and permission is required from the said authority under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 for conversion of the land from ‘jal’ to ‘bastu’, which has not been obtained by the private respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation in this regard before the concerned authority through his learned counsel on 6th April, 2026 2 which is yet to be considered. The petitioner seeks consideration of the same. Denying such allegation, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that permission for development of plot nos. 1944 and 1945 has been taken by the private respondent from the Haldia Development Authority pursuant to which the relevant portions of the land have been converted to ‘bastu’ from ‘jal’. The private respondent received the sanctioned building plan in 2022 and has completed the construction in plot Nos. 1944 and 1945 in terms of the said plan sometime in 2023. No construction has been raised by the private respondent in any portion of the plot no. 1932. The contention of the parties needs to be verified by the appropriate authority. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner in this regard is pending, the Pradhan, Byabattarhat Paschim Gram Panchayat, being the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to consider and dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and the private respondent, in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to place relevant documents in support of their respective contention at the time of hearing. 3 The 3rd respondent is at liberty to take the assistance of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nandakumar, being the 7th respondent herein to ascertain the plots of land utilised by the private respondent for construction. The decision taken by the authority shall be communicated to the parties within a week thereof. In the event the construction raised by the private respondent is found to be illegal/unauthorised, the concerned authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities (Suvra Ghosh, J.)