The court emphasized the need for inspection and potential action under the Act against unauthorized occupation affecting access to property.

1. The affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. Despite service, none turns up on behalf of the respondent nos.10 to 13.

3. At the very outset Mr. Mostafa, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner seeks leave to correct the cause title in respect of the respondent no.4.

4. Leave as prayed for is granted. Necessary correction in respect of the respondent no.4 is to be carried out in course of this day, in court by the learned advocate on record for the petitioner.

5. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ/writs against the respondent authorities; more specifically against the respondent nos.1 to 3 for commanding them to remove unauthorized encroachment over the national highway at the instance of the private respondents.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Mostafa, learned advocate for the writ petitioner that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the land particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition, over which the writ petitioner has constructed a two storeyed building.

7. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the private respondents herein have encroached the national highway which is situated in front of the dwelling house of the writ petitioner in such a fashion causing hindrance to easy egress and ingress to the writ petitioner. Drawing attention to page no.24 of the instant writ petitioner being a copy of the representation dated 05.01.2024 as submitted by the writ petitioner, it is contended by Mr. Mostafa that despite submission of the representation with the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities practically sat tight over the matter and did nothing for removal of the encroachment as made by the private respondents.

8. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mostafa that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition.

9. Such contention is opposed by Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the instant writ petition is not at all maintainable in view of the provision of Section 28 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 2002‟ in short).

10. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that Section 28 of the said Act of 2002 clearly mandates that no person shall have a right to direct access to any national highway.

11. Mr. Halder, learned advocate for the respondent State and its instrumentalities, submits before this court that from the record of right as has been annexed with the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the writ petitioner‟s land is a waterbody and therefore, the writ petitioner has got no right to construct a dwelling house thereon.

12. Such submission is however disputed by Mr.

Mostafa by submitting that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that such dwelling house has been constructed after making necessary conversion.

13. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.14 however submits that under the Act of 2002, the Tribunal has been established and therefore the said Tribunal ought to have heard the grievance of the writ petitioner.

14. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this court at the very outset proposes to look to the provision of Section 26 of the said Act of 2002, which is quoted hereinbelow