1 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 19915 of 2025 Onkar Garg & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Masood Ms. Debanwita Pramanik For the State : Mr. N. Bhattacharjee, SSE Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. R. Chatterjee For the respondent nos.7 and 8 : Mr. Satyam Mukherjee Mr. Kingshuk Dasgupta Ms. Debomita Biswas For the respondent no.9 : Mr. Saptarshi Datta Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya Ms. Sriparna Mitra Ms. S. Ghosh Mr. P.K. Pal Mr. Debdut Hore Heard on and Judgment on : 23-09-2026 Partha Sarathi Sen, J.:- 1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the report dated 13.06.2025 as prepared by the Additional District Magistrate and 2 District Land and Land Reforms Officer, South 24-Parganas (‘jurisdictional ADM and DL&LRO’ in short), who is the respondent no.2 herein, a copy of which has been annexed with the instant writ petition at page nos.105 to 107. In this writ petition, the writ petitioners have not only prayed for quashing of the said report dated 13.06.2025, but also have prayed for a fresh demarcation of the land in respect of the writ petitioners’ land measuring about 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet in LR Plot No.414, Mouza – Madurdaha, District – South 24-Parganas. 2. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, some relevant facts are required to be dealt with and those are as under: - (a) It is the specific case of the writ petitioners that they are the joint owners of the aforementioned property to the extent of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet in LR Plot No.414. (b) It is the further case of the writ petitioners that at all material times, the said property of the writ petitioners was requisitioned and, subsequently, the said property was, however, derequisitioned vide memo dated 19.02.2015 and physical possession of the said property was handed over to the writ petitioners. To substantiate such contention, the writ petitioners relied upon some 3 orders of the jurisdictional LA Collector, copies of which are annexed at page nos.24 to 49 of the writ petition. (c) Admittedly, the writ petitioners entered into a development agreement with the private respondent no.9 company in respect of the said property. However, the respondent no.9 company by a communication dated 23.01.2023 intimated the writ petitioners that on physical verification at Plot No.414, the land to the extent of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet is not traceable and, on the contrary, 20 cottah of land could be traceable in LR Plot No.414. (d) On 30.03.2023, the writ petitioners through their learned lawyer requested the BL&LRO, Kasba, South 24-parganas to cause physical demarcation of the writ petitioners’ property at LR Plot No.414. (e) In connection with WPA 25704 of 2023 (Onkar Garg v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), the Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24-Parganas, who is the respondent no.4 herein submitted a status report dated 17.02.2025, wherein he has confirmed that Plot No.414 in aforementioned mouza was requisitioned vide LA Case No.XX/45 of 1966-67, however, a portion of the said Plot No.414 was partly released from the said requisition on 19.02.2015 and in the same year possession was given to 4 the recorded raiyats. In the selfsame status report, it was indicated by the respondent no.4 authority that the onus of demarcation lies on the jurisdictional BL&LRO, Kasba and not upon him. (f) On perusal of the said status report dated 17.02.2025 as submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 25704 of 2023 (Sri Onkar Garg & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) directed the jurisdiction ADM(LR) and DL& LRO to complete demarcation process at the disputed plot of land with the help of the jurisdictional BL& LRO and to submit a report before the said Court. On the returnable day, that is on 17.06.2025, such report was submitted by the jurisdictional ADM and DL & LRO in connection with WPA 25704 of 2023 and the said Co- ordinate Bench while disposing the said writ petition though accepted the said report, however, granted liberty to the writ petitioners to take appropriate steps questioning the correctness of the demarcation report. (g) The said demarcation report dated 13.06.2025 is impugned in this writ petition. 3. In support of her contention Ms. Pramanik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners contended that on perusal 5 of the impugned report dated 13.06.2025, it would reveal that the same is absolutely contrary to the earlier status report dated 17.02.2025 as submitted by the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer, inasmuch as the said jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer in his status report dated 17.02.2025 specifically confirmed that the present writ petitioners are the owners of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet of land in RS/LR Plot No. 414 in the aforementioned Mouza, which has been de-requisitioned by a Government order dated 19.02.2015. In support of her contention Ms. Pramanik places her reliance upon copies of the orders of delivery of possession as has been annexed with the instant writ petition from pages 24 to 49. 4. It is argued by Ms. Pramanik that the impugned report cannot stand in the eye of law since the jurisdictional ADM and DL& LRO while preparing his report dated 13.06.2025, has completely misguided himself in holding that a portion of the writ petitioners’ land to the extent of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet falls in contiguous Plot No. 417 which is an impossibility in view of the earlier status report dated 17.02.2025 and in view of the order of de-requisition dated 19.02.2015. It is thus submitted by Ms. Pramanik that on account of such glaring irregularity in the impugned demarcation report, the writ petitioners may be granted appropriate reliefs in terms of the prayers in the instant writ petition. It is further argued by Ms. Pramanik that 6 the jurisdictional ADM and DL& LRO in his report also noticed that the demarcation of the Plot No.414 cannot be carried out on account of considerable changes in the field, due to passage of time and even then he has submitted a faulty report which may be set aside. 5. Ms. Dhar Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State in her usual fairness submits before this Court that the respondent/State has got no objection, in the event this Court passes an order directing the jurisdictional BL & LRO to conduct a fresh demarcation process. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 in course of his submission, draws attention of this Court to paragraph 10 of the writ petition wherein the writ petitioners have specifically pleaded regarding handover of the physical possession of the de-requisitioned land by the Government on 19.02.2015. Placing his reliance upon the earlier status report dated 17.02.2025 as prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas, it is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that there is no discrepancy in the said status report inasmuch as the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer, merely reiterated the version of the writ petitioners as made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition and in the concluding part, the said authority categorically indicated that he is not the appropriate authority for conducting the demarcation process, 7 rather the same is to be conducted by the jurisdictional BL& LRO, Kasba. 7. It is further argued by Mr. Mukherjee that considering the said status report dated 17.02.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 25704 of 2023 did not consider the said status report and on the contrary directed the jurisdictional ADM and DL & LRO to prepare a demarcation report with the help of the jurisdictional BL&LRO. To buttress his submission, Mr. Mukherjee took me to page Nos. 119 to 120 of the instant writ petition, being the field enquiry report/demarcation report, as prepared by the revenue inspector of the office of the jurisdictional BL&LRO. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that on conjoint perusal of the impugned report dated 13.06.2025 and the relevant field verification report, it would reveal that there is no discrepancy in the said report inasmuch as the surveyor of the jurisdictional BL & LRO during physical verification observed that the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass passes through LR Plot No. 414 and the different portions of the EM Bypass which goes through LR Plot No. 414 had been divided into three parts, namely, part (a) the western part of EM Bypass, (b) the EM Bypass itself (c) the Eastern part of EM Bypass. 8. It is further argued by Mr. 8. It is further argued by Mr. Mukherjee that during physical verification when all the stake holders were present, the jurisdictional BL&LOR office noticed that the claimed area of the writ petitioners to the extent 8 of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet goes beyond LR Plot No. 414 and reaches Plot No. 717. It is argued by Mr. Mukherjee that the writ petitioner for the reason best known to them did not disclose that a substantial portion of LR Plot No. 414 has been utilized for the purpose of construction of EM Bypass and the endeavor of the writ petitioners is to show that their right title and possession over 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet of land in LR Plot No. 414 remains intact. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that this Court being a writ court in a judicial review cannot decide such disputed questions of facts and on such score the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9 while adopting the argument of Mr. Mukherjee contended further that after execution of the development agreement with the writ petitioners on physical verification, it was noticed that the actual extent of the land in possession of the writ petitioner in LR Plot No. 414 is far below the measurement of 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet. 10. It is pertinent to note herein that both Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Bhattacharyya also submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, though the said two learned advocates could not cite the relevant provisions of law in course of their argument. 9 11. Since on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 7,8 and 9, the issue of maintainability of the instant writ petition is raised, this Court at the very outset proposes to look to the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (Act of 1997 in short). 12. On perusal of the Section 2(r)(ii) of the Act of 1997, it appears that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is a specified Act. Section 6 of the Act of 1997 postulates that an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an authority under specific Act is within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. 13. Admittedly, the jurisdictional ADM and DL &LRO is an authority under a specified Act. On careful perusal of the entire pleading as well as the prayer as made in the instant writ petition, it appears that the writ petitioners while impugning the demarcation report dated 13.06.2025 as prepared by the jurisdictional ADM and DL&LRO, South 24 Parganas practically alleges culpable negligence on the part of the said authority. Such being the position, this Court is constrained to hold that the action of the jurisdictional ADM and DL&LRO while submitting his demarcation report dated 13.06.2025 ought to have been challenged before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. In view of such, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 10 14. For the sake of argument, even if it is held that the instant writ petition is otherwise maintainable, it appears to this Court that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee that this Court finds no contradiction between the status report dated 17.02.2025 as submitted by the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer and the report which is impugned in the instant writ petition, inasmuch as while submitting the said status report, the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer categorically indicated that he is not the competent person to carry out the demarcation process. 15. At this juncture, if I look to the impugned report vis-à-vis the field verification as has been conducted by the surveyor of the jurisdictional BL&LRO, it appears to this Court that while physical verification and demarcation over LR Plot No. 414 in the aforementioned Mouza, it has been noticed by the surveyor that a substantial portion of the EM Bypass and its adjoining areas passes through LR Plot No. 414 and for that purpose in LR Plot No. 414, 7.24 acre of land was utilized. 16. This Court has also noticed that during the demarcation process, the writ petitioners and all other stakeholders were present and the writ petitioners showed the area to the surveyor upon which the writ petitioners claimed their right title and possession. During such physical verification, the said surveyor noticed that the area as shown on behalf of the writ petitioners crossed the boundary of LR Plot No. 11 414 and reaches to the extent of a portion of 417. It appears to this Court that in the impugned report, the jurisdictional ADM had exactly reported the same. 17. As rightly pointed by Mr. Mukherjee, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot determine the right title and possession of the writ petitioner over a particular plot of land and/or over the adjoining plot of land, if there be any, since this Court lacks machinery for recording of evidence either oral or documentary. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is constrained to hold that the writ petitioners in the instant writ petition have miserably failed to show any glaring irregularity and discrepancy which is required to be interfered with by issuing appropriate writs as prayed for. 19. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 20. With the dismissal of the instant writ petition, all pending interlocutory application, if there be any, are also dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands hereby vacated. 22. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 23. 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.) S.R. [AR(C)]/Sws.M[AR(C)]