16.09.2026 Sl. No. 209-211 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 3366 of 2016 Md Babar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. With WPA 3368 of 2016 Lutfunessa Bewa Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. With WPA 3370 of 2016 Nasrin Jahan Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Ms. Priyanka Jana, Mr. Parimal Sardar, …for the petitioners. Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja, Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley, …for the WBSEDCL. Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Mr. S. Paul, …. for the State in WPA 3366 of 2016. Mr. Amit Baran Dash, … for the State in WPA 3368 of 2016. Mr. P. S. Chowdhury, … for the State in WPA 3370 of 2016. 1. Since in the instant three writ petitions identical questions of facts and laws are involved, on consent of all the parties to the instant writ petitions, the instant three writ petitions are tagged together and taken up for hearing analogously for disposal. 2 2. Parties to the instant three writ petitions are represented by their respective learned advocates. 3. By filing the instant three writ petitions, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically against the respondent no.2 authority being the Land Acquisition Collector in District- Malda for taking appropriate steps for de-acquisition of 0.92 acres of land which according to the writ petitioners remains unutilized along with other ancillary reliefs. 4. For convenience, facts are taken from WPA 3661 of 2016. 5. At the time of hearing, Mr. Dhole, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 47 of WPA 3366 of 2016 being a note-sheet issued by the DISCOM. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Dhole that from the said note-sheet it would reveal that for the purpose of construction of a sub-station at Mothabari under Mouza-Jotegopal in Kaliachak Block, District Malda 9.45 acres of land was acquired. However, the requiring body utilized 0.53 acre of land for construction of the sub-station and thus, 0.92 acre of land could have been de-acquisitioned by the respondent State. 3 7. It is submitted by Mr. Dhole that based on such note-sheet of the DISCOM, the writ petitioners on 12.06.2015 submitted a representation with the jurisdictional Additional District Magistrate, District- Malda requesting him to take appropriate steps for de-acquisition of 0.92 acre of land which remain unutilized by the requiring body. However, the respondent State and its instrumentalities remain silent over the matter and did nothing and thus, the writ petitioners are entitled to reliefs as prayed for. 8. Such contention of Mr. Dhole is vehemently opposed by Mr. Amit Baran Dash, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 9. It is argued by Mr. Amit Baran Dash that the entire acquisition has been initiated under Act I of 1894 and the land loosers, who are the writ petitioners herein, have obtained due compensation. 10. It is further submitted by Mr. Amit Baran Dash that as per request of the writ petitioners reference was made before the jurisdictional District Judge for enhancement of the compensation which is still pending. 11. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Dash further contended that in terms of the provisions of Act I of 1894 there is hardly any scope of de- acquisition of any land which has been validly acquired by the State. 4 12. Mr. Panja, learned advocate duly assisted by Mr. Koley appearing on behalf of the DISCOM supports the contention of Mr. Amit BaranDash. 13. Mr. Koley further submits that at present there is no unutilized land because the WBSEDCL authority is now utilizing the entire acquired land which is, however, disputed by Mr. Dhole, learned advocate for the petitioner. 14. On careful perusal of the entire material as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that for some reason or others, the writ petitioners’ representation for consideration of their prayers for de-acquisition of the alleged unutilized land by the requiring body has not been disposed of by the respondent authority. 15. In view of such, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the present writ petitions to submit a comprehensive representation with the respondent no. 2 authority along with a server copy of this order positively within 45 working days from the date of passing of this order and in the event such comprehensive representation is filed with the respondent no. 2 authority, the respondent no. 2 authority shall consider such representation in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing both to the writ petitioners and the officials of the WBSEDCL shall pass a reasoned order/orders 5 on such representations and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioners. 16. The entire exercise as indicated in the foregoing paragraph shall have to be completed by the respondent no.2 authority within 60 working days from the date of receipt of the comprehensive representation from the present writ petitioners. 17. The time limit as fixed by this Court is peremtory and mandatory. 18. With the aforementioned observation the instant three writ petitions are disposed of. 19. Before parting with, it is made clear, that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has made no observation with regard to the merit of the representations as submitted by the writ petitioners. 20. It is further made clear that since the affidavits have not been called for, the allegations made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)