JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 12th November, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 20719 (W) of 2018 (Hrishikesh Halder vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.). 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the directions as contained therein. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the private respondent nos.7 and 8 in the writ proceeding. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety:- "The petitioner seeks removal of encroachment from government land. Learned advocate for the private respondents submits that, the private respondents are occupying government land and that, they have applied before the various authorities and that there are proceedings pending before the High Court. It appears that, the private respondents are in occupation of land belonging to the State. In such circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned will invoke the provision of West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 for removal of such encroachment. It is expected that, the entire proceeding is concluded within four weeks from the date of its commencement. He will initiate the proceeding within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to him. The private respondents are not produced, in the event, they are at liberty to substantiate the claim that, they have a right to occupy such land. The authority exercising jurisdiction under the Act 1962 will take such contention into consideration, if raised. W. P. No. 20719 (W) of 2018 is disposed of. No order as to costs." 6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the same is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 7. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversity are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. 8. 7. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversity are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. 8. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.