✦ Calcutta High Court · 16 Feb 2026

Bhagwandas Vehicles Test Service Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1818. WPA 18846 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

Judgment

within the first category of officers who are qualified to be called Collectors in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 i.e. officers other than an officer specially appointed under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 2. Accordingly, an appeal against an order passed by any officer who is qualified to be called a in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 and who is not an officer Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 would lie before the Commissioner of the Division.

#11. In the case at hand, the order impugned had been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who has been specifically indicated in Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 to be included in the definition of a Collector cannot therefore be an officer specially appointed under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section

#2. He is not excluded from the purview of the expression “Collector” used in Section 7 of the said Act of 1962. In such view of the matter, an appeal against an order passed by such officer could not 5 have been filed before or entertained by the District Magistrate in terms of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1962.

#12. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6 has, in his usual fairness, acceded to the aforesaid interpretation of the provisions and has handed up to court a notification dated December 19, 2016 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Cell and submitted that the Commissioner, presidency Division of Kolkata exercises jurisdiction over North 24- Parganas where the property which forms the subject matter of the lis is situated.

#13. Since the appeal that had been filed by the petitioners’ before the District Magistrate, impugning the order dated May 15, 2025 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar was incompetent in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove, therefore, a natural consequence thereof would be annulment of the order impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the order impugned dated July 04, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, North 24- Parganas, Barasat in Mis. Appeal No. 2 of 2025 is set aside as the same had been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

#14. Since the petitioner and in fact all the parties have acted under the a bonafide mistake of law and have 6 pursued the appellate remedy before a wrong forum, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to avail of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 7 of the said Act of 1962 before the Commissioner, Presidency Division, Kolkata within a period of fifteen days from the date.

#15. Since the order impugned has been set aside, all the consequential steps taken in terms of the order impugned dated July 04, 2025 would also stand set aside.

#16. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the Sports Department of the Government West Bengal is owner of the subject land and as such the State Department is a necessary party to the proceeding under the said Act of 1962. Mr. Banerjee’s client shall be at liberty to make appropriate request for addition party before the appellate authority, before whom the appeal is required to be preferred within the time specified herein and the petitioner shall be entitled to take objection to the same in accordance with law which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

#17. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ case in this writ petition and all points are left open to be urged by the 7 petitioner before the appellate authority and to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

#18. WPA 18846 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

#19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities (Om Narayan Rai, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 — s. 7; Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Calcutta High Court, on 16 Feb 2026. The bench was NARAYAN RAI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. WITH CAN No. 1 of 2025). ← Search more judgments