JHARNA PRADHAN (MAITY) Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indisputably, the petitioners are unauthorized occupants in respect of a piece of plot being No. 1676 appertaining to Khatian No.1 at Mouza Dakshin Purusattampur, J.L. No. 286 in Mandarmoni Coastal Police Station. It is also not in dispute that a proceeding under the provision of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 was initiated against the petitioners and other unauthorized occupants on the basis of a report of the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. The Collector and S.D.O., Contai adjudicated the said proceeding and passed an order of eviction. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition giving opportunity to the petitioners to prefer a statutory appeal under Sec. 7 of the said Act. The petitioners preferred a Mandamus Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice disposed of the said appeal holding, inter alia, that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the order dtd. 13/10/2022 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Collector and S.D.O., Contai with a direction to supply a copy of the report of B.L. and L.R.O., Ramnagar and thereafter take a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Subsequently, as per direction of the Division Bench the report of the B.L. and L.R.O. was served upon the petitioners and the Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai again passed the order of eviction against the petitioners. On the basis of said eviction order the petitioners were served notice by the respondent No.3 directing them to quit, vacate and surrender the peaceful possession of the plot in question by 2/8/2023.

(2.) Challenging the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10/4/2023 and consequent notice issued to the petitioners by the respondent No.3 are challenged in the instant writ petition.

(3.) At the outset, the learned advocate for the State respondents has raised a question of maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that when the statute provides a remit by filing an appeal under Sec. 7 of the Act, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.