29.09.2026 Sl. No. 34 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 16408 of 2026 Ashfakuddin Munshi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. A. K. Biswas, … for the Petitioner. Mr. Sujit Bhunia, …. For the State. Mr. Avishek Prasad, Ms. Sreyasi Manna, … for the Respondent nos. 9 & 10. Mr. Debrata Mondal, Ms. Sreetama Neogi, Ms. Nandini Sharma, … for the Private Respondents. 1. Affidavit of service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record. 2. The writ petitioner, the respondent State, the private respondent, and the respondent Panchayat authority are represented by their respective learned advocates. 3. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the alleged encroachment by the private respondent over a road situated in front of the writ petitioner’s plot no. 8380 in Mouza Palsunda under P.S. Palashipara, District Nadia. 4. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits before this Court that the instant writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. He draws the 2 attention of this Court to page numbers 51-54 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the order dated 22.05.2025 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A. 21450 of 2018 (Ashfakuddin Munshi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.) 5. It is argued on behalf of the respondent State that considering the same allegation regarding alleged illegal encroachment in front of the aforementioned plot, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Panchayat authority to consider the representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. 6. It is argued on behalf of the respondent State that despite pendency of the said representation, the writ petitioner has approached before this Court for the self-same relief, which cannot be considered in view of the settled principle of law of res judicata as enunciated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the instant writ petition is not barred by the principle of res judicata, inasmuch as it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the road in front of the writ petitioner’s plot of land bearing L.R. plot no. 8380 does not belong to the Panchayat authority and on the contrary, it belongs to the P.W.D. authority. 8. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears that while disposing of W.P.A. 21450 of 2018, a Co-ordinate 3 Bench of this Court, on the basis of a report submitted on behalf of the respondent State, came to a categorical finding that the alleged encroachment, if there be any, is in the village road and the Panchayat authority has the domain over the matter, and accordingly directed the Panchayat authority to consider the said representation. 9. No material has been placed before this Court that the Panchayat authority has disposed of the said representation. Rather, it appears to this Court that the writ petitioner has again approached this Court practically on the self-same cause of action alleging encroachment of the P.W.D. road in front of the self- same plot of land. 10. It appears to this Court that the matter in issue as involved in the instant writ petition is directly and substantially in issue in the earlier round of writ petition that is in W.P.A. 21450 of 2018, and the parties to the instant writ petition and the parties to the earlier writ petition are also substantially same. 11. In view of the aforementioned observation, this Court is constrained to hold that the relief as claimed by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. 12. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)