18.09.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.11 akd W. P. A. 15026 of 2024 [Aminara Begam -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Samrat Chakraborty … … for the petitioner Mr. Robiul Islam Sk. Jayes Hossain Mr. Masooq Rahman … … for private respondents 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to demolish the illegal construction that is being made by the private respondents over the said plot of land being a nayanjuli situated in front of the premise of the petitioner located at Mouza – Babultali, J.L. No. 83, Khatian No. 21397, Dag No. 277.” 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that a parcel of land appertaining to Dag No. 277 at Mouza – Babultali, J.L. No. 83, Khatian No. 21397, which falls within Ward No. 28 of the Kamarhati Municipality in the district of Murshidabad, belongs to the petitioner. He further submits that in front of his house, there is a PWD road and one nayanjuli. The private respondents have encroached upon the land belonging to the PWD (Roads) and started making construction thereon. The petitioner requested them not to carry out such illegal work. However, the said request of the petitioner has not been acceded to. He also submits that this fact was brought to the notice of the concerned respondents by the 2 petitioner by way of a representation dated 2nd May, 2024. However, despite receipt of such representation, no action has been taken in this regard. Given the situation, the petitioner has been compelled to prefer this writ petition. 4. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the matter is relegated back to the respondents with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation. 5. Mr. Islam, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, opposes the contentions advanced by the petitioner. He submits that for the last twenty years, the petitioner has been carrying on business activities from the said land. However, he submits that and having regards to the stand taken by the petitioner, if the matter is relegated back to the authority with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the private respondents, he would have no objection. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and upon perusal of the materials on records, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 herein, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 2nd May, 2024, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents herein. If, upon such consideration, respondent no. 2 finds substance in the grievance raised by the petitioner in the said representation, he shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. However, if respondent no. 2 finds that the petitioner’s claim lacks merit, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3 7. It is clarified that I have not gone into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 2nd May, 2024. All points are kept open to be decided at the time of considering the petitioner’s representation. 8. With these observations and directions, WPA 15026 of 2024 is disposed of. 9. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)