Court affirmed State's authority to declare land acquisition and ordered removal of encroachment, highlighting deficiencies in petitioner's ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention herein that on September 10, 2025, the writ petitioner has filed a composite exception against the report filed by the State as well as by the railway authorities which has been taken on record.

2. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 02.06.2025 as passed by the respondent no. 5/authority whereby and whereunder the respondent no.5/authority came to a finding that the present writ petitioner is an encroacher in respect of L.R. Plot No. 2278 corresponding to C.S./R.S. Dag No. 2246 at Mouza – Duilla under P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah.

3. The respondent no. 5/authority while passing the said reasoned order dated 02.06.2025 also noticed that an unauthorized multistoried construction was raised on such plot of land and, accordingly, passed an order for vacating the said unauthorized multistoried construction within 15 days from the day of passing of the said reasoned order failing which the railway authority would take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. At the time of hearing Mr. Guhathakurata, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 30 to 69 of the instant writ petition, being copies of two registered deeds of conveyance dated 09.04.2012 and 22.10.2014 as have been executed in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner whereby and whereunder according to the writ petitioner, the mother of the writ petitioner became the absolute owner of 5 cottahs 19 chittaks 12 sq.ft. of land in the aforementioned plot of land.

5. Drawing attention of Page No. 70 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Guhathakurata that soon thereafter the name of the writ petitioner’s mother was recorded in the record of right and the mother of the writ petitioner during her lifetime went on paying ‘Khajna’ in favour of the respondent/State in respect of the said plot of land.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Guhathakurata that after the death of the mother of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner become the owner of the said property by law of inheritance and after obtaining sanctioned plan from the local authority, he has started construction over the said property which was, however, stopped by the respondent/railway authority by issuing two separate stop work notices dated 17.08.2021 and 24.02.2021, the copies of which have been annexed at Page Nos. 83 and 84 of the instant writ petition.

7. Drawing attention to Page Nos. 81 and 82 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Guhathakurata that from the copy of the memo dated 15.12.2022 as issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Howrah, it would reveal that pursuant to a query made by the writ petitioner under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the said SPIO informed that the aforementioned plot of land was notified in gazette vide notification dated 22.08.1961 which according to Mr. Guhathakurata is a notice under Section 4 of Act I of 1894, a copy of which has been annexed at Page Nos. 72 to 76 of the instant writ petition.

8. At this juncture, Mr. Guhathakurata draws attention to Page Nos.77 to 79 of the instant writ petition, being a gazette notification dated 26.10.1961 as published under Section 6 of Act I of 1894. It is submitted by Mr. Guhathakurata that from the said notification under Section 6 of Act I of 1894, it would reveal that aforementioned plot which is the subject matter of the instant lis was kept outside the ambit of the said