N.22Sl 151/CL 21.09.26 DL-11 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 15891 of 2026 Priti Bikash Das & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Pronay Basak … for the petitioner. Mr. Suhiut Bhunia Mr. Soumen Gayen … for the State. Mr. B. Dey Mr. S.M. Hassan Ms. Anupama Yasin … for the Municipality. 1. The writ petitioners, the respondent State and the respondent Municipality are represented by their respective counsel. 2. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 13.03.2025 as passed by the jurisdictional District Magistrate i.e. District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur in a proceeding under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (the ‘said Act’ in short). 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate duly assisted by Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate draws attention of this Court to page no.41 of the instant writ petition, being a notification dated 23.08.1993 issued by the Chairperson, Haldia Notified Area Authority, subsequently, renamed as Haldia Municipality. Drawing attention of this Court to page no.45 onwards of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that pursuant to the aforementioned notification dated 23.08.1993, deed of lease was executed in favour of the writ petitioners, who are the business persons of APANIKA Market under the Haldia Municipality. 4. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Bhattacharyya took me to page nos.88 to 91 of the writ petition, being a copy of an order dated 04.09.2024, as passed by the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate, being the Executive Magistrate, Haldia in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act whereby and whereunder, the said jurisdictional Magistrate directed the respondent State, more specifically, the respondent no.10 authority to remove the illegal encroachments from Plot Nos.593, 582/796 and 540 in Mouza – Chaitanyapur under Police Station – Sutahata, District – Purba Medinipur within sixty days from the date of passing of this order. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that their place of business is situated on the aforementioned plots and being part and parcel of APANIKA Market. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that since 2 in the said order dated 04.09.2024, the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act most wrongly came to a finding that Haldia Municipality could not produce any document regarding transfer of right, title and interest in favour of them in respect of the said plots of land (where the said market is situated) by the Haldia Highway Sub-division, Public Works (Roads) Directorate under whose name the said plots are recorded, therefore, the removal is justified. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that feeling aggrieved with the said palpable wrong finding, the present petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 10(4) of the said Act before the jurisdictional District Magistrate, who most curiously accepted the view of the jurisdictional Sub-division Magistrate without entering into the facts and circumstances as involved in the said appeal. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that in the said appeal, the said jurisdictional Magistrate also committed serious error of law in placing the onus to prove regarding change of ownership from Public Works (Roads) Directorate to Haldia Municipality in respect of aforementioned three plots of land which are involved in the said proceeding under Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the 3 said Act. It is, thus, argued by Mr. Bhattacharyya that it is a fit case for interfering with the said order as passed by the jurisdictional District Magistrate, since on account of mechanical acceptance of the finding of the Executive Magistrate and also on account of burdening the present writ petitioners to prove some materials, which are not within their knowledge, the decision making process of jurisdictional District Magistrate has been vitiated and, thus, the same requires to be interfered in this judicial review. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State and learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Haldia Municipality support the impugned order. It is conjointly argued by them that both the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate and the jurisdictional District Magistrate in their respective orders came to a justified factual finding with regard to the ownership of the said three plots of land with the Public Works (Roads) Directorate in absence of any material to show that any interdepartmental transfer took place in respect of the said plots of land in favour of the Haldia Municipality, who had allegedly executed the registered deed of lease. 8. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This 4 Court has given its due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the contending parties. 9. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears that the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 04.09.2024 in a proceeding under Section 10(3) of the said Act on careful perusal of the entire materials placed before him come to a factual finding that the aforementioned three plots of land stood recorded in the relevant records of right in the name of the Public Works (Roads) Directorate. In the said proceeding under Section 10(3), the said jurisdictional Executive Magistrate also found that the Haldia Municipality failed to produce any document regarding interdepartmental transfer in favour of them in respect of the said three plots of land. 10. It further appears to this Court that none of the private respondents before the said jurisdictional Executive Magistrate also could produce any document regarding such interdepartmental transfer. 11. In the appeal as preferred by the present writ petitioners before the jurisdictional District Magistrate under Section 10(4) of the said Act, it appears that bone contentions of the present writ 5 petitioners before the jurisdictional District Magistrate were that they are lessee in respect of the relevant shop rooms, as situated on the aforementioned three plots of land. The Haldia Municipality is also a party to the said appeal as party respondent. Before the jurisdictional District Magistrate also no document could be placed from the appellants (who are the writ petitioners herein) or from the Haldia Municipality (who was the respondent in the said appeal) that actually interdepartmental transfer took place in respect of the aforementioned three plots of land whereupon the present writ petitioners are carrying on their business. In considered view of this Court, the jurisdictional District Magistrate based on such factual finding concurred with the finding of the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 04.09.2025. 12. This Court is aware that sitting in a writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as a second Appellate Court since the scope of judicial review is very much limited. Judicial review is entertainable, in the event, the writ petitioner is successful to satisfy that the decision making process of the authority is vitiated on account of consideration of some materials, which are not on record and/or non-consideration of materials, which are relevant 6 and are available on record and/or the decision, which is the subject matter of judicial review is otherwise perverse and no prudent person can support the same and/or the principle of natural justice has been violated. 13. Coming to the factual aspects as involved in this writ petition, it appears to this Court that in the proceedings under Sections 10(3) and 10(4) both the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate and the District Magistrate have come to a concurrent factual finding that in respect of the said three plots of land, no interdepartmental transfer took place in favour of the Haldia Municipality, who allegedly executed the registered deed of lease in favour of the writ petitioners. The said two authorities also came to a factual finding that no material could be placed regarding interdepartmental transfer of the aforementioned three plots of land in favour of the Haldia Municipality permitting them to execute registered deed of lease in favour of some third parties. It further appears to this Court such two orders were passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the writ petitioners. 14. In considered view of this Court, the writ petitioners before this Court have miserably failed to substantiate that the aforementioned two 7 concurrent findings are incorrect and/or based on no materials. 15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the order dated 04.09.2025 as passed by the Executive Magistrate, Haldia and the order dated 13.02.2025 as passed by the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur in proceedings under Sections 10(3) and 10(4) respectively. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 17. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 18. 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.) 8