N.22Sl 151/CL 28.09.26 DL-58 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 8477 of 2026 Sree Chaitanya Gaudiya Math & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahata Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata Mr. Lalratan Mandal … for the petitioners. Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya Mr. Subhomoy Paul … for the State. Mr. Biswarup Biswas Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh … for the respondent nos.9 to 12 and 14 to 20. 1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no.2 authority commanding him to remove the encroachments as allegedly made by the private respondents over the L.R. Plot No.3470, 3471 and 3472 in Mouza – Rudrapara, Police Station – Nabadwip, District – Nadia. 3. On perusal of the page nos.63 and 64 of the instant writ petition, it appears that in connection with L.R. Plot Nos.3472 and 3471 in the self-same mouza, a proceeding was initiated under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (‘the said Act’ in short), which was dismissed by the said jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate with an observation that the PWD (Roads) shall take appropriate steps for recording of the relevant land in the L.R. record and, thereafter, to proceed for removing the unauthorized encroachers as per the West Bengal Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962. The writ petitioners being the complainants in the said Section 10(3) proceeding filed an appeal before the jurisdictional District Magistrate under Section 10(4) of the said Act, which is also dismissed with an advice to the PWD (Roads) authority to take up this matter de novo. 4. Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that the present writ petitioner being the appellants in the said appeal before the jurisdictional District Magistrate have challenged the said order dated 21.01.2026 as passed by the jurisdictional District Magistrate, Nadia with a further prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no.2 authority to remove the encroachment over the said plots of land. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Section 10(4) of the said 2 Act. It is argued by Mr. Biswas that under Section 10(4) of the said Act, an appeal can be preferred at the instance of a person, who is allegedly responsible for the encroachment. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Biswas that in the same way, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the said appellate order. 6. Mr. Biswas submits before this Court that he intends to file an affidavit-in-opposition against the writ petition. However, it appears that the liberty as sought for by the private respondents is not at all required to be granted in view of the subsequent development as observed by this Court from the report of the respondent State, which is discussed herein below. 7. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits before this Court that from the report as submitted on behalf of the respondent State authority it would reveal that after passing of the order of the appeal by the jurisdictional District Magistrate, the relevant L.R. Plot Nos.3470, 3471 and 3472 have been duly recorded in the name of Public Works Department (Roads) and, thereafter, after obtaining a demarcation report from the jurisdictional Revenue Officer, it was noticed that the encroachment took place over the said plots of land and, thus, the 3 jurisdictional Assistant Engineer has already issued notices to the encroachers under Section 10(1) of the said Act. It, thus, appears to this Court that with the development, as indicted in the report of the respondent State, the dispute involved in the instant writ petition now has become academic since the respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent no.2 authority has already initiated a proceeding under Section 10(1) of the said Act. 8. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. Before parting with, it is made clear that the disposal of the instant writ petition will not prevent the respondent no.2 authority to take appropriate steps, in the event, the alleged encroachers fail to comply with the provisions of Section 10(1) of the said Act. 11. 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.) 4