Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Molla Giyasuddin & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 July, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
-: 1 : -
25
02.07. 2014 rrc W. P. 18296 (W) of 2014 (Molla Giyasuddin & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Arindam Das ....For the petitioners Mr. Samrat Sen Mr. Jahar Datta ....For the State The petitioners applied before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An order was passed on 25th March, 2014 by the Magistrate directing the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Hariharpara Block and the Officer-in-Charge, Hariharpara Police Station to submit reports. The officer-in-charge was further directed to maintain peace and tranquility, and status-quo in respect of the suit property. This writ petition has been presented essentially to ensure compliance of the said order.
The order of the Magistrate is in the teeth of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995 (1) CHN 224 (CPA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Employees' Union & Ors. Vs. CPA Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.).
In my view, instead of approaching the Magistrate, the petitioners ought to have approached the civil court having jurisdiction for appropriate decree/order for enjoyment of the
-: 2 : -
immovable property in dispute to the exclusion of the opposite party in the application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is settled law that disputes in respect of possession of immovable properties must be resolved through the machinery provided by the ordinary laws of the country and cannot be made the subject matter of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made in this regard to the decisions reported in AIR 1993 SC 1225 (Mohan Pandey Vs. U. R. Rajgharia) and (1995) 1 CLJ 297 (Bishtupada Khara Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
In view of the above position, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed, without costs.
However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )