N.22Sl 151/CL 15.09.26 DL-06 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 16432 of 2026 Aatreyee Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pradyumna Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Md. Danish Farooqui Mr. Sannidhya Datta … for the petitioners. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Standing Council Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee Mr. Saikat Dey … for the State. Ms. Mousumi Bhowal Mr. Ishan Bhattacharya … for the Municipality. 1. The writ petitioners, the respondent State and the respondent Municipality are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the alleged inaction and/or non-action of the respondent nos.1 to 3 to undertake official measurement, survey and demarcation of the lands comprised in CS and RS Dag Nos.2547, 2549, 2550, 2551 and 2552 under Khatian No.402 at Mouza - Sultanpur, Police Station - Dumdum by deputing a competent government Amin and/or Surveyor. 3. At the time of hearing Mr. Sinha, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that this is the specific case of the writ petitioners that in respect of the aforementioned lands, the writ petitioners are the owners by purchase and the writ petitioners intent to raise boundary wall in and around the said lands, which has been obstructed by some local hooligans. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that finding no other alternative, the writ petitioners approached the respondent authorities to demarcate the lands of the writ petitioners as mentioned (supra). 5. To substantiate his contention Mr. Sinha draws attention of this Court to Section 56 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (‘the said Act’ in short). It is submitted that the Section 56 of the said Act mandates that the Revenue Officer and/or an officer authorized by him is duty bound to make a survey and to take measurement thereof. It is submitted that despite submission of the representation no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, more specifically, by the jurisdictional BL&LRO. 6. Placing his reliance upon a judgment and order dated 24.07.2026 as passed by this Court in WPA 7493 of 2025 (Achintya Barman v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), it is argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that in an identical facts and 2 circumstances, this Court while disposing WPA 7493 of 2025 directed the jurisdictional BL&LRO to make a field verification and to submit a demarcation report. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that this is a fit case for granting relief to the writ petitioners. 7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits before this Court that the instant writ petition is not at all maintainable inasmuch as Section 56 of the said Act is not meant for resolving a dispute between two private parties. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee places his reliance upon the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in connection with WPLRT 77 of 2012. 8. On careful perusal 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 the principal grievance of the writ petitioners is that even after purchase of the aforementioned property, he is unable to raise boundary wall in the said property on account of obstruction by some local hooligans. Admittedly, representation has been submitted with the respondent authorities seeking their intervention, which is not adhered to. 3 9. At this juncture, if I look to Section 56 of the said Act, it appears to this Court that it is the legislative mandate that the Revenue Officer and an Officer authorized by him may at any time enter upon any land, if he considers necessary and make a survey and take measurement thereof. 10. In considered view of this Court, Section 56 of the said Act is not meant for resolving a boundary dispute between two private individuals. With deepest respect to the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, this Court is constrained to hold that in the event the writ petitioners have boundary dispute either with the contiguous land owners and/or with any other private individuals, his remedy lies before a jurisdictional Civil Court. 11. In further considered view of this Court, despite availability of alternative suitable efficacious remedy, no case has been made out on behalf of the writ petitioners to invoke high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court, especially, in a private dispute. In further considered view of this Court, the ratio as decided by this Court in the case of Achintya Barman (supra) is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the case of Achintya Barman, the principal grievance of the writ petitioner was that 4 on account of encroachment over a government land by the private respondents therein, the said writ petitioner is facing difficulty to get access to his own Raiyati land. The facts and circumstances as involved in the instant writ petition is completely different from the facts and circumstances as decided in the case of Achintya Barman (supra). 12. On careful perusal of the judgment as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WPLRT 77 of 2012, it further appears to this Court that the said Division Bench while disposing of the said writ petition held thus: - “Considering the aforesaid provisions of Section 56 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, we are of the opinion that the State- respondents are not obliged to provide any Amin for the purpose of measurement and demarcation of the private land specially when no public interest is involved. Section 56 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 manner of application in the facts of the present case.” 13. This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 29.03.2012 while deciding WPLRT 77 of 2012. 14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and, thus, is 5 dismissed. 15. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 16. 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.) 6