Authority: Calcutta High Court (Division Bench)

Order Date: 9 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Haldia Municipality; Respondents – State of West Bengal and others, including private respondent No. 9.
  • Appeal (MAT No. 935 of 2026) challenges the judgment of a Single Judge which affirmed the District Magistrate’s order under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, confirming an Executive Magistrate’s direction to remove an unauthorized encroachment on Public Works Department (PWD) land under Section 10(3) of the same Act.
  • Appellant argued that Section 3 of the Government Buildings Act, 1899 (a Central Act) bars the application of the 1964 Act because the land was used for a public toilet, and that permission had been granted for plot 1452, not for the disputed plot 751/1452.
  • The State contended that the 1964 Act is a special statute unrelated to building regulations, that the disputed plot is distinct from plot 1452, and that the procedural requirements of Section 10 of the 1964 Act were duly complied with.

Court Findings

  • The Court held that Section 3 of the 1899 Act applies only to statutes regulating erection, re‑erection, construction, alteration or maintenance of buildings within municipalities; the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 does not fall within this scope, so the bar is not attracted.
  • The Court examined the plot numbers and concluded that plot 751/1452 is not a sub‑plot of plot 1452; no permission was shown for construction on plot 751/1452.
  • Reference was made to a Special Officer’s report dated 10 February 2021, which found that the municipality had constructed on PWD land without approval and had obstructed ingress and egress of the private respondent.
  • The Division Bench had earlier affirmed the Single Judge’s order directing the Executive Engineer to initiate proceedings under Section 10(1) of the 1964 Act for removal of the illegal construction; no further challenge to that order was filed.
  • The Court found no patent procedural irregularity, error of law or perversity in the impugned judgment.

Final Outcome

  • MAT No. 935 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the judgment dated 18 May 2026 passed in WPA No. 20056 of 2022.
  • Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 is also dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made; certified copies of the order may be obtained upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Land Encroachment, State Highway Law, Municipal Authority