Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Swapan Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 August, 2022
22.08.2022
Court No. 19
Item No. 2 (DL)
CP
WPA No. 20449 of 2019
Sri Swapan Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Sumonto Ganguly
Mr. Pranab Palit
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu
Mr. Uttam Kumar De
...for the State.
Mr. Santimay Bhattacharyya
Mr. Z. Haque
Mr. H. K. Mahata
....for the respondent no. 6.
Liberty is granted to correct the serial number
of the respondents in the cause title, here and now.
The petitioner alleges inaction of the Officer-in-
Charge, Jagatballavpur Police Station. It is
contended that despite two complaints having been
filed before the police authorities, no steps have been
taken. Allegation is against the respondent no. 4. It is
the specific contention of the petitioner that the
respondent no. 4 tried to assault the petitioner and
grab the two privies belonging to the petitioner.
Reliance has been placed on a decree passed in Title
Appeal No. 499 of 1966. According to the petitioner,
the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Howrah by a
judgment and decree dated June 28, 1968 set aside
the judgment and order of the learned Munsif and
decreed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
respondent no. 4, that the judgment and decree
passed in Title Appeal No. 499 of 1966 was set aside
by this court. The said fact has been suppressed by
the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter, another
suit was filed in 2007 on the selfsame cause of action
which was also dismissed. An appeal therefrom was
filed and the appeal was dismissed. A second appeal
was filed before this court, which was dismissed for
default. An application for restoration has been filed.
It is further submitted by the respondent no. 4 that
there has been a dispute over the two privies. The
respondent no. 4 had approached the concerned
authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,
1955 for correction of the record of rights. Such
application was allowed and the petitioner has filed
an application before the learned Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal.
The police report in the form of an instruction
has been filed and the same be kept on record. It
appears that an enquiry was made. The enquiry
indicated that the dispute was with regard to
possession of the two privies situated in the northern
side of the petitioner's land.
The respondent no. 4 claimed that the said
privies were constructed by the said respondent. On
the other hand, the petitioner claims to have
constructed the same.
The enquiry further revealed that civil suits
had been filed by the petitioner's predecessor-in-
interest. The issue between the parties, is over title
and possession. The police authorities have also
specifically stated in the said report that the
respondent no. 4 was an octogenarian and the
allegation of physical assault could not be
substantiated.
The issues which have been contended before
the court with regard to possession and title, cannot
be decided in this proceeding. The police authorities
are not empowered under the law to execute any
order or decree which the petitioner relies upon.
Moreover, the respondent no. 4 has submitted
documents to show that the said decree passed in
the Title Appeal has been set aside by this court and
the other suits have also been dismissed. The police
authorities have also reiterated these facts in the
report. The writ petition suffers from suppression.
Under such circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of, directing the police authorities of the
Jagatballavpur Police Station to keep a vigil in order
to maintain peace. All the other issues which have
been raised, cannot be decided in this proceeding.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Parties are to act on the server copy of this
order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
