India-Bangladesh Border fencing, Speaking in the Lok Sabha on March 27, Union Home Minister Amit Shah while touching on the issue of illegal infiltration into the country had said that 450 kms of the India-Bangladesh Border (IBB) is yet to be fenced as the Mamata Banerjee government has not provided the land for this despite repeated reminders.
On January 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court directed the state government to hand over to the BSF before March 31, lands which had already been acquired and for which it had received compensation from the central government, in the districts of 24 Parganas (N), Nadia, Murshidabad, Malda, Dakshin Dinajpur, Uttar Dinajpur, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, and Cooch Behar.
A bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen issued the interim direction on a PIL filed by former Deputy Chief of Army Staff Subrata Saha.
The plea highlighted the grave issue of unfenced IBB adjoining West Bengal. It pointed out that the IBB comprises 4096.70 Kms of which West Bengal shares the longest stretch — 2216.70 km out of the entire border, passing through the nine districts.
The PIL said that for the purpose of expediting the land acquisition and handing over the land to the BSF, a series of meetings were held, which were attended by very senior level officers including Union Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary of Government of West Bengal.
As regards lands for which acquisition/purchase proceedings have been commenced under the direct purchase policy but could not be finalised and is struck up at different stages including for approval before the State government, the court directed the state “to expedite the entire process and complete such acquisition/purchase before 31st March, 2026.” It also sought an Action Taken Report (ATR) before the next date of hearing to show the steps taken for completing the purchase/acquisition proceedings.
On lands for which acquisition proceedings are yet to begin, the court said it will first hear the parties on the applicability of Section 40 of the Act of 2013, we deem it proper to take decision on this aspect after hearing the parties on the applicability and feasibility of invoking Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The state had contended that section 40 is a statutory provision whereas the direct purchase policy is only an executive instruction/policy which does not have any statutory backing. Therefore, for the purpose of fencing, where the defence and integrity of the country is involved, Section 40 is the special provision, which should have been invoked rather adopting or following a direct purchase policy, the state submitted.
Addressing a ‘karyakarta sammelan’ in Siliguri on January 31 , Amit Shah said, “I want to tell the people of Bengal, don’t think that Mamata Bannerjee will give land to BSF after the High Court direction. She will not. Because those infiltrators are her vote bank.”
The HC will now hear the matter next on April 2.
