SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2599

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
LOKESH KUMAR TAHLANI @ LOKESH TAHLANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 1426 / 2026



27.01.2026 Ct. 3 Item No.

AD 19 Saswata Lokesh Kumar Tahlani @ Lokesh Tahlani Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Brijesh Jha Mr. Amartya Gopal Sinha Ms. Anushka Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. R.N.Chakraborty Mr. R. Sinha …For the Maheshtala Municipality

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 7th January 2026 and 15th January 2026 so as to permit the petitioner to carry out construction of a boundary wall.

3. The matter has a chequered history. Alleging that certain plots of land had been forcibly utilized by the Mahestala municipality for construction of a water project without proper demarcation, a writ petition being WPA no. 2844 of 2025 was filed before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 17th June 2025 by directing that the representation filed by the petitioner before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas be disposed of by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by taking into consideration all relevant records and to pass a reasoned order.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, on 18th September 2025 a joint inspection was conducted in presence of the contesting parties to demarcate the portion of land which had been acquired. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner though the joint inspection has been held, the petitioners are yet to be served with a copy of the reasoned order as directed earlier. According to him, though demarcation has already been effected, the same has not been given effect to. He submits to protect the demarcated portion which has not been acquired, the petitioner has applied before the municipality seeking permission to construct a boundary wall. Such application dated 7th January 2025 is also yet to be disposed of.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and in the light of above, I direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file a detailed report before this Court as regards the outcome of the joint inspection and as to whether any final order as directed pursuant to the order dated

17th June 2025 has been passed.

6. List this matter under the same heading

in the combined monthly list of March 2026

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top