23. 23-03-2026 (Ct. no.19) debajyoti (Bench ID 265719) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE WPA 26029 of 2025 Sk. Mujib @ Sk. Mujid @ Mujid Sek Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sk. Rejaul Alam, Adv., Mr. Subir Sabud, Adv., Mr. Surajit Maity, Adv. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv. … For State. 1. Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court today is taken on record. The learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the private respondents have been duly served. But, in spite of service, none appears on behalf of the private respondents. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 21st November, 2025, the report of the Assistant Engineer, Tamluk Highway Sub- Division, P.W.D. (Roads) Directorate dated 16th March, 2026 filed by Mr. Galib, learned Senior Government Advocate, is taken on record. A copy of such report has been supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Galib draws the attention of the Court to the report of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer dated 12th March, 2026 addressed to him wherein it has been stated that plot no.510 has been recorded in favour of Bharat Samrat as the upper tenant and the plot has been recorded in the name of the Public Works and Building Department. He further submits that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has opined in the said Memo that in the computerized land record, the plot no.510 has been wrongly recorded in favour of one Taleb Ali. Mr. Galib 2 further refers to the report of the Revenue Inspector forwarded to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer vide Memo dated 19th December, 2025, wherein it has been recorded that upon a field enquiry, it was found that plot no.510 has been encroached upon by three encroachers, namely, Sk. Hassan, Sk. Monirul and Sk. Majid Ali. 4. After going through the said report, this Court finds that the Assistant Engineer by a letter dated 06th March, 2026 found that there are two conflicting reports of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, one addressed to the learned advocate for the State with regard to the status of the plot and another addressed to the Assistant Engineer. In view thereof, the Assistant Engineer sought for a clarification from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer vide Memo dated 16th March, 2026. 5. Since a clarification has been sought for by the Assistant Engineer, Tamluk Highway Sub-Division, PWD (Roads) Directorate, vide Memo dated 16th March, 2026, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer is directed to give the necessary clarifications as requested by the Assistant Engineer vide Memo dated 16th March, 2026 as expeditiously as possible, but positively on or before 10th April, 2026. Immediately upon receipt of the clarifications, if it is found that the plot in question is controlled by the PWD, necessary steps in accordance with law shall be taken by the Assistant Engineer, Tamluk Highway Sub-Division, PWD (Roads) Directorate, by initiating necessary proceeding under the relevant statute and conclude the same as expeditiously as positively, but positively within a period of ten weeks from the receipt of the clarifications from the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. 6. With the above observations, WPA 26029 of 2025 stands disposed of. 7. Parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 8. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)