DEBASIS RAY AND ANR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1





In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

WPA 21480 of 2019

Debasis Ray & Ors.
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

and

WPA 19815 of 2021

Debasis Ray & Anr.
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arpan Guha

For the respondent/State : Mr. Nikunj Berlia
In WPA 21480 if 2019 Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya

For the respondent/State : Mr. Partha Banerjee
In WPA 19815 of 2021 Mr. Devendra Prasad



Heard on : 13.11.2026
Judgment on : 13.11.2026
Partha Sarathi Sen, J.:-
1. In WPA 21480 of 2019 as well as in WPA 19815 of 2021, the writ
petitioners and the respondents/State are represented by the respective
counsel.

2

2. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and
after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties this Court
is of the considered view that the instant two writ petitions are well
connected and the subject matter of the instant two writ petitions are
also identical.
3. In view of such, this Court proposes to dispose of both the writ petitions
by a common judgment.

4. The subject matter of WPA 21480 of 2019 is the notice dated 16.09.2019
as issued by the SDO Barasat, Sadar Sub-Division, North 24 Parganas
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘jurisdictional SDO’ in short) whereby and
whereunder a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 27.09.2019 was
forwarded to the writ petitioners. In the minutes of the said meeting
dated 27.09.2019, it was observed that the present petitioners are found
to be encroachers of 15 decimals of Government land situated over Dag
No. 332/1965 which stands recorded in the name of Habra State General
Hospital. In the said meeting, the State authorities have directed the
present writ petitioners to produce their papers and documents to
substantiate their lawful occupation over the alleged encroached property
which is subject matter of instant two writ petitions.
5. By filing WPA 19815 of 2021, the petitioners have impugned a notice
under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (the ‘said Act’ in short) as served
upon the present petitioners. By the impugned notice dated 23.11.2021,

3

the jurisdictional SDO, being the Collector within the meaning of Section
2(1) of the said Act opined that the aforementioned public land has been
unauthorisedly occupied by the writ petitioners and accordingly,
pursuant to the said impugned notice, the jurisdictional SDO directed
the writ petitioners to show cause as to why he shall not pass an order of
eviction under Section 4(1)(a) of the said Act from the said alleged
unauthorised encroachment.

6. At the time of hearing, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing
on behalf of the writ petitioners submits before this Court that it is the
specific case of the petitioners in both the aforementioned two writ
petitions that the present writ petitioners are the lawful occupiers of the
property as involved in the aforementioned impugned notice dated
16.09.2019 as well as the impugned notice under Section 3(1) of the said
Act dated 23.11.2021. It is further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that prior
to filing of WPA 21480 of 2019, the present petitioners at the meeting
dated 27.09.2019 produced all relevant documents of their right, title
and interest over the property in question before the jurisdictional SDO,
which was not at all considered favourably by the said SDO, which is
why the impugned notice dated 23.11.2021 under Section 3(1) of the said
Act was issued which clearly shows that close mind of the jurisdictional
SDO and thus appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ
petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant two writ petitions.

4

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that even before this High
Court, the present writ petitioners have produced sufficient documents of
their right, title and interest over the property in question which has been
duly considered on the earlier occasions during the pendency of the
instant two writ petitions by several Co-ordinate Benches.
8. It is, thus argued by Mr. Mukherjee that in view of such there cannot be
any difficulty to set aside the impugned notice dated 23.11.2021 as
issued by the jurisdictional SDO under Section 3(1) of the said Act.
9. Mr. Berlia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State
in WPA 21480 of 2019 and Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent State in WPA 19815 of 2021 conjointly submit
before this Court that both the two writ petitions are premature and
there cannot be any cause of action for filing the instant two writ
petitions. Drawing attention to Section 3 of the said Act both Mr. Berlia
and Mr. Banerjee, learned advocates for the State submitted that it is the
legislative mandate that, in the event, the Collector within the meaning of
Section 2 of the said Act forms an opinion upon an application made by
an Officer of the owner of the public land authorized in this behalf by
such owner or upon information received otherwise that a public land is
unauthorized occupation of any person, the said Collector is competent
to issue notice under Section 3(1) of the said Act. Drawing attention to
the minutes of the meeting dated 27.09.2019 as has been annexed at
page no.199 in WPA 21480 of 2019, it is submitted by both the learned

5

counsel for the respondent State that since despite giving due
opportunity to the writ petitioners the present writ petitioners have
miserably failed to substantiate their independent right, title and interest
over the encroached public land, the jurisdictional SDO being the
Collector within the meaning of Section 2 of the said Act is quite
competent to issue the notice under Section 3(1) of the said Act.
10. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent State that on perusal
of the impugned notice dated 23.11.2021, it would reveal further that the
jurisdictional SDO made no venture to evict the present writ petitioners
from his settled possession without due course of law rather has given
opportunity to the petitioners to show cause to substantiate their right,
title and interest over the alleged encroached property. It is, thus,
submitted by Mr. Berlia and Mr. Banerjee, learned advocates that there
cannot be any occasion to grant any relief to the present writ petitioners.
11. This Court has meticulously gone through the materials as placed before
this Court. This Court has given due consideration over the submissions
of the learned advocates for the contending parties.
12. For effective adjudication of the instant two writ petitions, this Court at
the very outset proposes to look to some of the relevant provisions of the
said Act , which are as under: -
“ 2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant
in the subject or context,-
(1) "Collector" means-
(a) in Calcutta, the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, and

6

(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;

(5) "person concerned" in relation to any public land, means any
person who is in the use or occupation of the public land;

(7) "public land" means any land belonging to, or taken or lease
by, the State Government, a local authority, a Government company or a
corporation owned or controlled by the Central or the State Government
and includes any land requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State
Government, but does not include a Government road or a highway with
the meaning of the Bengal Highways Act, 1925, or any other law for the
time being in force on the subject.
Explanation. – In this cause "Government company" means a
Government company within the meansing of section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956.
(8) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public land means
the use or occupation by any person of the public land without authority
in writing by or on behalf of the owner thereof (and includes the
continued use or occupation of any such land on the expiry or
termination of such authority.]
3. Issue of notice to show cause against order for eviction
of unauthorised occupant from public land. - (1) If, in respect of any
public land, the Collector is of opinion, upon application made by an
officer of the owner of the public land authorised in this behalf by such

7

owner or upon information received otherwise, that the public land is in
the unauthorised occupation of any person or persons, the Collector shall
issue "la notice in such from and containing such particulars as may be
prescribed calling upon all person concerned] to show-cause before such
date, not being less than fifteen days after the date of the notice, as may
specified in the notice why an order under sub-section (1) of section 4
should not be made, and shall cause it to be served in the manner
referred to in sub-section (2). Intimation of the date so specified shall be
given to the owner of the puble land and to its officer authorised under
this sub-section.
(2) A notice issued under sub-section (1) shall be served by affixing it on
a conspicuous part of the public land concerned and in such other
manner as may prescribed.
(3) A notice served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2) shall be
deemed to have been duly served.
4. Order of eviction of person in unauthorised occupation
from public land. - (1) If after considering the cause, if any, shown by
any person in pursuance of a notice issued under section 3 and any
evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector is satisfied that the
public land is in unauthorised occupation, he shall make an order of
eviction directing all persons in such authorised occupation to vacate the
public land and deliver possession thereof to owner within such time as
may be specified in the order.
(2) The Collector shall cause a copy of the order made under clause (a) of
sub-section (1) to be served in the manner referred to in sub-section (2) of
section 3.
5. Collector's power to enforce delivery of possession by
evicting unauthorised occupants. - (1) If, in respect of any public
land or part thereof, any person concerned refuses or fails to comply
with an order made under sub-section (1) of section 4 within the time

8

specified in the order, the Collector shall enforce delivery of possession
of such public land or part thereof to the owner after evicting the person
concerned and for this purpose the Collector, or any officer authorised by
him, may take such steps or use such force as may be necessary.

13. On careful perusal of the aforementioned legislative provisions, it is,
thus, clear that the jurisdictional SDO very much comes within the
definition of ‘Collector’ under Section 2(1) of the said Act. Section 2(7)
defines the ‘public land’ and Section 2(8) defines ‘unauthorized
occupation’.
14. At this juncture, if I look to Section 3 of the said Act, it appears to this
Court that it is the legislative mandate that, in the event, the Collector is
of the opinion that a public land is in unauthorized occupation, the
Collector is duty bound to issue a notice upon the alleged encroachers to
show cause within a specified time as to why he shall not initiate a
proceeding for eviction for removal of unauthorized occupation from the
public land.
15. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision, if I look to the
factual aspects as involved in the instant two writ petitions, it appears to
this Court that for some reasons or other, the jurisdictional SDO has
come to a prima facie opinion upon consideration of all the documents as
furnished before him by the writ petitioners that a public land is in
unauthorized occupation at the instance of the present writ petitioners
and for that reasons, he has served a notice under Section 3(1) of the
said Act dated 23.12.2021, which is impugned in WPA 19815 of 2021.

9

16. In course of his argument, Mr. Mukherjee though contended that
issuance of notice dated 16.09.2019 enclosing therewith the minutes of
the meeting dated 27.09.2019 and the notice under Section 3(1) of the
said Act dated 23.11.2021 presupposes the closed mind of the
jurisdictional SDO, however, in considered view of this Court the opinion
formed by the jurisdictional SDO while issuing the said two impugned
notices are merely tentative in nature as otherwise the said jurisdictional
SDO would not have direct the present writ petitioners to show cause as
to why he shall not initiate proceeding for eviction of unauthorized
occupation under Section 4 of the said Act.
17. In considered view of this Court, the jurisdictional SDO while issuing the
impugned notice dated 23.11.2025 under Section 3(1) of the said Act
made no legal infermity and/or procedural error and on the contrary in
considered view of this Court he was very much justified in issuing the
said notice after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioners to
substantiate their right, title and interest over the property in question.
18. Though in course of argument, Mr. Mukherjee contended that sufficient
materials have been placed before this Court in connection with the
instant two writ petitions regarding the lawful occupation of the present
writ petitioners over the alleged public land, however, with deepest
respect to Mr. Mukherjee, this Court cannot accept such contention of
the writ petitioners inasmuch as sitting in writ jurisdiction, this Court
cannot adjudicate right, title and interest of a party before it since it

10

lacks the machinery to decide such questions. In further appears to this
Court that, in the event, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction made an
endeavour to decide the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the
alleged public land that would tantamount to encroachment to the
jurisdiction of the Collector within the meaning of Section 2(1) of he said
Act.
19. It further appears to this Court that the present writ petitioners ought to
have approached the Collector i.e. the jurisdictional SDO by submitting
their show-cause supported by relevant documents/evidence to
substantiate their independent right, title and interest over the alleged
public land instead of filing the instant two writ petitions.
20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court, thus, finds no
merit in the instant two writ petitions.
21. Accordingly, WPA 21480 of 2019 and WPA 19815 of 2021 are dismissed.
22. The interim order, if there be any, stands hereby vacated.
23. Before parting with, this Court, however, grants liberty to the present
writ petitioners to submit their reply/show-cause along with supportive
evidence to the impugned notice dated 23.11.2021 as served upon them
under Section 3(1) of the said Act before the respondent no.4 in WPA
19815 of 2021 positively within fifteen working days from today and, in
the event, any such reply/show-cause is filed, the respondent no.4
authority in WPA 19815 of 2021 is directed to pass a reasoned order
upon such reply/show-cause of the writ petitioners after giving due

11

opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or their authorized
representatives and shall forthwith communicate the same to the writ
petitioners.
24. The entire exercise as indicated in the foregoing paragraph shall have to
be completed by the respondent no.4 authority in WPA 19815 of 2021
within thirty working days from the date of submission of the show-
cause/reply by the present writ petitioners.

25. The time limits, as fixed by this Court, are peremptory and mandatory
and the same shall be binding both upon the writ petitioners and the
respondent no.4 authority in WPA 19815 of 2021.
26. It is further directed that, in the event, while passing the reasoned order,
the respondent no.4 authority in WPA 19815 of 2021 finds no merit in
the reply/show-cause as would be submitted by the present writ
petitioners, he is directed to take all consequential actions under Section
4 of the said Act soon thereafter.
27. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record for the respondent
State to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent
no.4 authority, who are directed to act on the sever copy of this order.

28. It is further directed that till passing of the reasoned order by the
respondent no.4 authority in WPA 19815 of 2021, the respondent State
and its instrumentalities including the respondent no.4 in WPA 19815 of
2021 shall not disturb the possession of the present writ petitioners in

12

respect of the property, which is subject matter of the instant two writ
petitions.
29. With the aforesaid observations, the instant two writ petitions are
dismissed .
30. There shall, however, no order as to costs.
31. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.


(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
[S.R (AR (C)/Sws.M[AR(C]