599 18.12. WPA 28617 of 2025

2025 Ashish Mittal and another Ct. No. Vs.

551 The State of West Bengal and others.

Ab ---------------

Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Mr. Steven S. Biswas, Ms. Huzaifa Shahid.

… for the petitioners.

Mr. Ambarnath Banerjee, Ms. Sanchayita De.

… for the State respondents.

1. This writ petition assails orders dated September

11, 2025 and October 14, 2025 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24- Parganas in a proceeding under Section 3 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.

2. By the order dated September 11, 2025, Tirupati Projects, which is a proprietorship firm, whereof the petitioner no. 1 claims to be the owner/proprietor, has been directed to remove “all the permanent and temporary structures from the suit plot within 12.30 p.m. of 10.10.2025”. The said order was followed up by another order dated October 14, 2025, whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas, directed the Executive Engineer, BMS Division, “to make necessary arrangement to take possession of the suit plot no. DD-9, Sector-I, Salt Lake on 8.12.2025 at 12.30 p.m”.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that although the order impugned is appealable in nature, however, the petitioners could not prefer an appeal before the appellate authority inasmuch as the appellate authority was not accepting the appeals.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners could not attend the hearing before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate because the petitioner no. 1 was ill and the petitioner no. 2 being his son was attending to the petitioner no. 1.

5. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the documents, which would substantiate the petitioners’ case that the petitioners are not in unauthorized occupation of any Government land including the plot in question.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-State Authorities refutes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the appellate authority is very much there and it is incorrect to say that the appeals are not being accepted. It is further submitted that, in fact, a learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners himself had written a letter to the Additional Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, as far back as on February 28, 2024 stating as follows:

“10. That my client never encroached any portion of said plot i.e. DD-9, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700064, he just cleared it up and beautified as well as modified the same at his own cost for the development of locality, where he is running his business. Further whenever my client organizes any function and/or program, he had taken all permissions from the authorities and paid fees accordingly.

11. That my client is ready and willing to vacate the said plot of land and handover to any person (proposed assignee) after proper assignment process from your good office, but not prior to that. My client had valid apprehension that if he leave or vacate the premises, then this plot of land will return back to its old state, as it was prior to 2015 and will again be converted into a dump yard of Salt Lake and also encroached by peoples by assembling shanties again, which will be a great shame to every public of such Block and cause loss to my client as well as society.”

It is further submitted that the order impugned dated September 11, 2025 is only aimed at removing people, who are in unauthorized occupation of plots in question, without disturbing the slum dwellers. It is further submitted that plot no. DD-9, which forms the subject matter of the proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, is an un-allotted plot and, as such, the petitioners could have laid any claim over the same.

7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, submits that the said letter dated February 28, 2024 does not appear to have been issued on be