Encroachment findings based on a unilateral inquiry cannot stand without meaningful participation by the affected landowner.

The appellant alleged that the State’s Public Works Department (PWD) had encroached upon 7.2 decimals of his land.

In an earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench directed the District Magistrate, Nadia, to inquire into the extent of encroachment.

A three-member committee comprising State officials reported that 0.01 acre had been used by the PWD, and the District Magistrate directed restoration of that area.

The appellant challenged the finding that only 0.01 acre had been encroached.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, reasoning that the District Magistrate had relied on a comprehensive committee report and had afforded the appellant an opportunity to be heard.

The appellant appealed; the State respondents did not appear despite service, and the appeal was heard ex parte.

Whether the District Magistrate’s determination of the extent of encroachment could stand when the appellant had not been given an effective opportunity to participate in the inquiry or field measurement, or to receive the inquiry report.

Whether the District Magistrate’s acceptance of the committee report and direction to restore the land, without independently assessing the report or ensuring restoration, satisfied the earlier Division Bench’s direction.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent by name.

It applies principles of procedural fairness and natural justice: a person whose land rights are under inquiry must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in relevant field measurements and inquiry proceedings and to know and respond to the resulting report.

A decision-maker must independently assess the evidentiary material rather than accept an inquiry report mechanically, and must give effective directions that carry the matter through to its practical conclusion.

An inquiry into alleged State encroachment should also be conducted impartially; the Court considered the composition of a committee entirely of State functionaries relevant to the reliability of its report.

The record before the District Magistrate did not show that the appellant had actually been heard, given the committee’s report, or allowed to participate in the field measurement that produced it, contrary to the basis on which the Single Judge had upheld the decision.

The District Magistrate had accepted the committee’s conclusion without independently examining its veracity and had merely directed restoration, without ensuring that possession was returned.

The committee’s exclusively State composition further raised doubt about the impartiality of its report.

The inquiry therefore did not fulfil the earlier Division Bench’s direction.

The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 31 July 2025 and the District Magistrate’s order dated 18 May 2023.

The matter was remanded to the District Magistrate for a fresh inquiry using independent surveyor(s), with the appellant permitted to participate in field inquiries.

After receiving the survey report, the District Magistrate must determine the extent of encroachment and direct either immediate restoration of the land or, alternatively, assessment and payment of fair compensation based on prevailing market rates at the time of encroachment, with interest from the date of encroachment until payment.

The exercise was to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31 January 2027; the connected application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.