ANISUL ALAM AND ANR SUBHASISH MISRA vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAND REFORMS AND ORS — MAT/30/2025

Case under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act ,1962 Section N/A. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th May 2025.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-May-2025

CNR: WBCHCJ0022972025

Filing Number

MAT/30/2025

Filing Date

29-Apr-2025

Registration No

MAT/30/2025

Registration Date

29-Apr-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad , Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad , Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

ACQUISITION & REQUISITION OF LAND ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION

Decision Date

13-May-2025

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act ,1962 Section N/A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANISUL ALAM AND ANR SUBHASISH MISRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LAND REFORMS AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad,hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad,hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

    The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri dismissed CAN 2 of 2025 as not pressed, after the applicants' advocate conceded that the application was filed under a misconception of law and withdrew it. The court accepted the withdrawal without adjudicating the substantive merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Application

    Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad , Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  5. 13-May-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF

  6. 02-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 29-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. MAT/30/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri dismissed CAN 2 of 2025 as not pressed, after the applicants' advocate conceded that the application was filed under a misconception of law and withdrew it. The court accepted the withdrawal without adjudicating the substantive merits of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case