IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

W.P.A. 17881 of 2025

Banbihari Julki & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

CAN 1 of 2025

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Ch. Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharyya

Mr. Kaustav Mishra

For the State : Mr. Jayanta Samanta

For the private respondent Nos.

13 & 14 : Mr. Raj Kr. Sain

Heard on : 27/11/2025 Judgment on : 27/11/2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :

1. The petitioners state that Chintamani Julki and Chandra Mohan

Julki were the recorded owners of C.S. Plot No.170 of Mouza-

Dwariberia under Police Station-Sutahata in the District of Purba Medinipur measuring about 40 decimals.

2. The petitioners claim that a portion of the aforesaid plot measuring about 20 decimals out of 40 decimals were acquired for the purpose of construction of a Pucca road. The petitioners claim to have acquired right, title and interest in respect of the plots 20 decimals of land in L.R. Plot No.170 by virtue of a family settlement. The petitioners state that they are carrying on business after constructing shop-rooms with temporary construction on the property owned by them.

3. A proceeding at the instance of the private respondents under the provisions of Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 (in short 1964 Act) was initiated. The concerned authority referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haldia, who passed an order under Section 10(3) of the 1964 Act on June 25, 2024 directing the petitioners as well as others to remove unauthorised encroachment from the plot of land being Dag No.170 within Mouza-Dwariberia under Police Station-Sutahata in the District of Purba Medinipur.

4. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 10(4) of the 1964 Act, which was dismissed by an order dated July 17, 2025. Petitioners challenged the orders dated June 25, 2024 and July 17, 2025 in this writ petition. The said writ petition was initially dismissed by an order dated September 18, 2025. The petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal against the said order being M.A.T. 1668 of 2025 and the Hon’ble Division Bench by an judgment and order dated September 25, 2025 allowed the said appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated September 18, 2025 passed in this writ petition with a direction to hear out the writ petition afresh on merits in the light of the observations upon granting the parties further opportunity to furnish additional documents by way of proper affidavits if they seek to furnish such documents.

5. Mr. Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that only a portion of Plot No.170 was acquired and the petitioner is not in possession of the balance area of the said plot as their raiyati land. The petitioners have not encroached upon the PWD road. He submits that without undertaking any demarcation of the plot in question the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate passed an order of removal of encroachment which order was mechanically affirmed by the appellate authority in an appeal filed under Section 10(4) of the 1964 Act.

6. The learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that the petitioners have made construction by encroaching upon the PWD road thereby obstructing the ingress and egress of the private respondents from their property being Plot No.171 to the PWD road. He submits that since the authorities under the 1964 Act have found that the PWD road has been encroached by the petitioners herein and an order directing removal of encroachment was passed.

7. According to the said learned advocate the authorities took into consideration the relevant materials which were before the authorities and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties passed the orders impugned. He concluded by submitting that this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review may not interfere with the orders passed by the said au