IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.551 16.02.26 M/L.

Item No.13 (Samar)

WPA 17250 of 2025 Beans and Roots and Food and Beverage & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. D. Agarwal, …for the Petitioner.

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Trisha Mukherjee, Mr. Chetan Kabra, … for the Respondent no. 6.

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, ….for the Respondent nos. 1 to 5.

Mr. Rajib Mullick, Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh, … for the Proforma Respondent.

1. This writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated June 28, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, North 24- Parganas, Barasat in Mis. Appeal No. 1 of 2025.

2. The said appeal was purportedly filed under the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 (hereafter the said Act of 1962). The order that was impugned before the District Magistrate in the said appeal under Section 7 of the said Act of 1962 had been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24- Parganas.

3. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, a question cropped up as regards the maintainability of an appeal under Section 7 of the said Act of 1962 before the District Magistrate against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could be maintained?

4. The parties were heard on this issue and the conclusion that has been reached is that such an appeal is not maintainable. The reasons flow from the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1962 themselves.

5. The appellate provision being Section 7 of the said Act of 1962, reads as follows:

“7. Appeal. - An appeal from an order made under this Act shall lie to –

(a) the Commissioner of the Division, where the order is made by the Collector, and (b)the Collector, where the order is made by any officer specially appointed under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of section 2, if preferred with thirty days from the date of the order appealed against and the decision of the Commissioner or the Collector, as the case may be, on such appeal shall be final.

Explanation. - In this section 'Collector' does not include an officer specially appointed under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of section 2.”

6. Thus there are two appellate authorities under Section 7 of the said Act of 1962. To wit, an appeal against an order passed by an officer specially appointed under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 2 of the said Act of 1962 shall lie before a Collector and an appeal against the order of a Collector shall lie before the Commissioner of a Division.

7. At this juncture, the definition of the expression Collector may be noticed. The same has been defined in Section 2(1) of the said Act of 1962 in the following manner:

“(1) "Collector" means –

(a) in Calcutta, the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, and (b) elsewhere, the Chief Officer-in-Charge of the revenue administration of the district, and includes an Additional District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, and any Executive Magistrate specially appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act.

Explanation. - In this clause Calcutta has the same meaning as in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951;”

8. A meaningful reading of the provisions of Section

2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 would reveal that there are two categories of officers who are qualified to be a Collector in terms of the provisions of the said Section. There is one category of officers which comprises the Chief Officer-in-Charge of the Revenue Administration of the District and the same also includes an Additional District Magistrate and a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The other class of officers encompasses Executive Magistrates specially appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of a Collector under the said Act of 1962.

9. Pertinently, the officers specially appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of a Collector unde