Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mukunda Bej & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 August, 2022
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
03.08.2022
Court No. 19
Item no.28 (ML)
CP
W.P.A. No. 11514 of 2022
Mukunda Bej & ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Gautam Banerjee
...for the petitioners.
Mr. S. K. Haldar
Mr. Arijit Sarkar
...for the State.
Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick
....for the respondent nos. 7 to 14.
The petitioner no. 1 claims to be the erstwhile owner of certain plots of land situated in Mouza - Ratanpur, pertaining to Khatian Nos. 714, 3124 and 726 being Dag Nos. 923, 942, 998, 1029, 1129, 1132, 1158, 1165, 1139, 1135, 7, 8, 982/1449, 1146, 936/1492. He claims through one Nirmal Chandra Marinda (since deceased). The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the subsequent purchasers.
It is contended that the respondent nos. 7 to 14 who did not have any claim over such lands, were continuously disturbing the cultivation of the petitioners. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 now claim to be in exclusive possession of the land. A complaint was lodged before the Inspector-in-Charge, Goghat Police Station, praying for registration of an FIR with 2 regard to such illegal activities of the respondent nos. 7 to 14.
The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 7 to 14 submits that a civil suit is pending between the said respondents and the petitioners, being Title Suit No. 68 of 2022. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Arambagh, Hooghly passed an ad interim order of injunction on July 11, 2022, restraining the defendants therein and their men and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff deity through the shebaits in respect of the suit property or from taking forceful possession till July 19, 2022. It is submitted that the said order was extended subsequently. It is submitted that while passing the order, the learned court observed that the allegations of the plaintiff was that Panchanani Bej (through whom the petitioners claim) had surreptitiously recorded her name in the land records indicating the property to be her personal property. Although, the name of Nirmal Chandra Marinda had been recorded as a shebait of the deity in the RS records with regard to the said lands.
The factum of possession of the deity through the shebait has also been recorded in the order of ad interim injunction.
The learned advocate for the State respondents submits that the dispute between the parties is civil 3 in nature and the writ court cannot interfere in this proceeding by passing orders in support of the petitioners' claim, which would be in direct conflict with the order of the learned civil court.
Having found that the dispute between the parties is over co-sharership of the property which is allegedly a debutter property, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned civil court for necessary orders. This is not a case which calls for interference by the police authorities.
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.)