Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Himalayan Consultants Private Limited (Petitioner) vs. State of West Bengal and others, including private respondents nos.6‑10.
  • Land Details: Petitioner owns approximately 0.69 acres forming part of LR Plot No.120 (RS Plot No.22), recorded in Khatian Nos.84, 85 and 205, Mouza‑Baniakhari, JL No.55, Police Station‑Matigara, Pargana‑Patharghata, District‑Darjeeling. Ownership is evidenced by two registered deeds of sale: instrument No.04982 of 2009 (Book‑I, CD Volume No.15, Pages 14‑23) and instrument No.04894 of 2009 (Book‑I, CD Volume No.15, Pages 37‑46), both registered at the Office of the Additional District Sub‑Register, Siliguri‑II, Bagdogra.
  • Encroachment Claim: Private respondents nos.6‑10 have allegedly constructed temporary and permanent structures covering about 65 feet on vacant land lying between the flank of Matigara‑Kurseong Road (a highway under the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964) and the petitioner’s southern boundary wall, which is in possession of the Public Works Department (PWD), State of West Bengal.
  • Representation: On 1 April 2026 (sent on 2 April 2026), the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer, North Bengal Construction Division, PWD, Hill Cart Road, and Respondent No.3, the Assistant Engineer, North Bengal Construction Division, PWD, Hill Cart Road, alleging the unauthorised encroachment.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Petitioner: Mr. Abhilash Mittal (advocate) urged that the matter be referred to the appropriate authority for action per law.
  • State: Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharya (Additional Government Pleader) stated that Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have already taken up the matter and will issue notices for enquiry and hearing.
  • Private Respondents: Mr. Hillol Saha Podder (advocate) conceded that the matter may be referred to the appropriate authority subject to notice to his clients.

Final Outcome

  • The Court directs Respondent No.2 (Executive Engineer) and Respondent No.3 (Assistant Engineer) to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 1 April 2026 and to dispose of it by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner and all concerned, within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
  • The reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner within one week of its passing.
  • The petitioner’s advocate is directed to convey this order to the two PWD officials for compliance.
  • The Court expressly states that it has not examined the merits of the writ petition; the petition is therefore disposed without admission of the allegations.
  • All interim orders, if any, are vacated; all connected applications, if any, are disposed; no order as to costs is made.
  • All parties must act in accordance with the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.
  • An urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, shall be provided upon compliance with legal formalities.

Topics: Land Encroachment, Public Highway Regulation