SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) This writ petition is presented questioning the order of eviction issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appointed under Section 2(1)(b) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (hereinafter "Act of 1962"), vide memo dated 16th June, 2003 under No.668(5)/SC which is quoted below: "Government of West Bengal Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Jalpaiguri. Memo No.668(5)/SC dated 16.06.2003 Notice U/s 4(1) of the W.B. Public Land (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1962 To Shri Kanchan Dey and 4 others S/o_________________________ Vill__________________________ P.S._________________________ Dist.________________________ Whereas it appears that a notice U/s 3(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 under memo of Notice no. 601(5)/G, 602(5)/G, 603(5)/G, 604(5)/G and 605(5)/G respectively both dated 28/05/2003 have been served all the concerned persons as stated in the said show cause notices those who are unauthorisedly occupying the following schedule of land and on refusal of accepting the said notice and after being satisfied, I pass this order of eviction directing you to vacate the Public Land and deliver possession thereof to the owner within two weeks from the date of this order i.e. within 30/6/2003. Schedule of land Mouza - Dabgram H. No. P.S. -Bhaktinagar, Dist. - Jalpaiguri Khatian No. __________, Sheet No. -07 Plot No. - 364 Area - 0.95 acres Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Collector U/s 2(1)(b) of the W.B. Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962"
(2.) During the course of hearing, the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that she preferred an appeal under section 7 of the said Act of 1962 before the Collector, Jalpaiguri, challenging the said order of eviction dated 16th June, 2003. The Collector, Jalpaiguri passed final order on the said appeal on 4th September, 2003 (Annexure - P6) holding that in view of the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1962, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners herein does not lie before the Collector and therefore, no relief was granted to the appellant. In this writ petition, the said order of the appellate authority dated 4th September, 2003 is also put under challenge.
(3.) In support of the contention of the State-respondents, an affidavit has been affirmed by the Deputy Magistrate, Jalpaiguri on 8th November, 2019, in order to put on record the relevant facts of the case for adjudication of the issue involved in the writ petition. On appreciation of the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1962, this Court finds it not necessary to enter into the factual aspects of the present writ petition, based on which the writ jurisdiction was invoked. Section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1962 is quoted below: "(b) elsewhere, the Chief Officer in charge of the revenue administration of the district, and includes an Additional District Magistrate, a Subdivisional Magistrate, and any Executive Magistrate, specially appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act; Explanation. - In this clause "Calcutta" has the same meaning as in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951." ;