Fresh Hearing Mandated for Removal of Encroachment Following Unreasonable Delay in Communicating Final Orders

The petitioners received a notice under Section 10(1) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, dated March 12, 2024, alleging encroachment on the Gangasagar to Kachubaria main road

After an initial removal order under Section 10(3) was affirmed in appeal [p. 2], a previous coordinate bench in WPA 20204 of 2024 set aside the appellate order and directed a fresh hearing under Section 10(3), granting a status quo order until a final decision

Although hearings were conducted and concluded in mid-2025, no final order was communicated. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 7) issued a new notice dated November 17, 2025, fixing a fresh date for hearing

The petitioners challenged this new notice, contending their land is raiyati (private) and that a fresh notice was unauthorized since the hearing had already concluded

1. Whether the notice dated November 17, 2025, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer for a fresh hearing under Section 10(3) of the Act, is legally sustainable after the conclusion of previous proceedings

2. Whether the authorities can invoke Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, against land claimed to be raiyati

The court primarily applied Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, which provides the statutory mechanism for the removal of encroachment from highways, specifically sub-section (1) for removal notices, (2) for applications to the Highway Authority, (3) for the summary proceeding and recovery of possession, and (4) for the appellate process

The court also adhered to the principles of administrative law and natural justice, requiring that the parties be afforded an "opportunity of hearing afresh" if a significant period has elapsed between the conclusion of a hearing and the communication of a final reasoned order

The court found that although the petitioners claimed the land was raiyati, a previous coordinate bench had already observed that the petitioners failed to provide prima facie proof of this claim

Regarding the procedural delay, the court noted that more than six months had passed since the previous hearing concluded without any order being communicated

The court reasoned that due to the "peculiar facts"—specifically the lapse of time and the intervening setting aside of the prior appellate order—the Sub-Divisional Officer was justified in seeking to hear the parties again

The court determined that the notice dated November 17, 2025, was not an act of harassment but a necessary step to ensure a fair, reasoned decision could be rendered and communicated to the parties in accordance with law

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the parties to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 7) on May 18, 2026. The court ordered the Respondent No. 7 to conduct a hearing, pass a reasoned order after affording all parties an opportunity to be heard, and communicate the decision positively by June 12, 2026. No order as to costs was made