IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 29.09.26 Item No.25 Sws.M WPA 14931 of 2026 Badal Chandra Manna Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh Mr. Gourab Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, ld AGP Mr. Bijay Lakshmi Shil ….for the State 1. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner, is taken on record. 2. None appears on behalf of the private respondent, despite service, however, the writ petitioner and the respondent/State are represented by their respective learned advocates. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically against the respondent No. 4/authority commanding him to remove the unauthorized encroachment from the Government land being Plot No. 974, Mouza – Kalurbheri under P.S. Bhagwanpur, District – Purba Medinipur. 4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this court that it is the specific case of the writ 2 petitioner that the writ petitioner’s ‘Raiyati land, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition is contiguous to the aforementioned Government land, which is a public land within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. It is submitted that is is also the specific case of the writ petitioner that on account of an encroachment over the said public land being Plot No. 974, at the instance of the private respondent, the petitioner’s access to his own raiyati land has been restricted and finding no other alternative, the writ petitioner under cover of his representation dated 26.05.2026 approached the respondent No.4/authority, but in vain. 5. Mr. Ghosh submits that it is a fit case for granting relief/reliefs, as prayed for by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State however vehemently opposes the prayer as made on behalf of the writ petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that in the garb of removal of the alleged encroachment, the writ petitioner is practically seeking an access over the public land which cannot be entertained. It is further argued by Roy Chowdhury that no prima facie material is 3 forthcoming before this Court that the plot No. 974 is a public land within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the said Act. 7. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due considerations on the submissions of learned advocates for the contending parties. 8. For proper adjudication of the instant writ petition, this Court at the very outset proposes to look to Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, which reads as under: “ 3. Issue of notice to show cause against order for eviction of unauthorised occupant from public land. - (1) If, in respect of any public land, the Collector is of opinion, uponapplication made by an officer of the owner of the public land authorised in this behalf by such owner or upon information received otherwise, that the public land is in the unauthorised occupation of any person or persons, the Collector shall issue 6[a notice in such from and containing such particulars as may be prescribed calling upon all person concerned] to show-cause before such date, not being less than fifteen days after the date of the notice, as may specified in the notice why an order under 7* * * *sub-section (1) of section 4 should not be made, and shall cause it to be served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2). Intimation of the date so specified shall be given to the owner of the public land and to its officer authorised under this sub-section. 4 (2) A notice issued under sub-section (1) shall be served by affixing it on a conspicuous part of the public land concerned and in such other manner as may prescribed. (3) A notice served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been duly served. 4. Order of eviction of person in unauthorised occupation from public land. - (1) If after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice issued under section 3 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the public land is in unauthorised occupation, he shall make an order of eviction directing all persons in such authorised occupation to vacate the public land and deliver possession thereof to owner within such time as may be specified in the order. (2) The Collector shall cause a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to be served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3.” 9. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision, if I look to the factual aspects as involved in the instant writ petition, it appears to this Court that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that Plot No. 974, Mouza – Kalurbheri under P.S. 5 Bhagwanpur, District – Purba Medinipur is a public land within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the said Act. 10. In view of such, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition directs the respondent No.4/authority to initiate a proceeding on the basis of the representation dated 26.05.2026 and in such proceeding he will be at liberty to issue notice to show-cause upon the private respondent, if he is prima facie satisfied that the plot in question, that is Plot No. 974, Mouza – Kalurbheri under P.S. Bhagwanpur, District – Purba Medinipur is a public land. 11. In the event after receipt of the reply to the show- cause from the private respondent and in the event no such reply is given within the stipulated time by the private respondent, the respondent No. 4/authority is directed to proceed in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act and is further directed to consider the representation dated 26.05.2026 in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing both to the writ petitioner and the private respondent and/or their authorized representative and shall pass a reasoned order and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ petitioner and the private respondent. 6 12. The entire exercise, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs is to be completed by the respondent No. 4/authority positively within 60 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 13. The time limits, as fixed by this Court, are peremptory and mandatory. 14. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record for the writ petitioner to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent No. 4/authority, who is directed to act on the server copy of this order. 15. In the event, the respondent No. 4/authority while passing the reasoned order finds sufficient substance and/or merit in the representation dated 26.05.2026, as submitted by the writ petitioner, he is directed to take all consequential action against the encroachers for removal of the encroachment in terms of Section 4 of the said Act soon thereafter. 16. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 17. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the representation dated 26.05.2026 as submitted by the writ petitioner 7 and thus all points are kept open for adjudication by the respondent No. 4/authority. 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.)