Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chandi Charan Jana & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 August, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P. No.13750 (W) of 2011
Chandi Charan Jana & Anr.
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna ....for the petitioners
Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee ....for the state
Heard on : August 24, 2011
Judgment on : August 24, 2011
The Court : The petitioners in this art.226 petition are alleging inaction on the
part of the police in that the police have not given them necessary protection so that they
may cultivate the lands in question.
Mr Manna appearing for the petitioners submits as follows. In view of the order
of the Civil Court passed in the petitioners' pending suit directing the parties thereto to
maintain status quo with respect to the lands in question and the fact that the petitioners
are entitled to cultivate the lands, the police, when the petitioners informed them that the
private respondents were wrongfully putting up resistance, were under an obligation to
give them protection so that they might cultivate the lands.
Mr Banerjee appearing for the State submits that the petitioners' remedy, if any, was before the Civil Court in which suit filed by them is pending. According to him, on the facts, the police were not supposed to take any action on the basis of the petitioners' allegations.
Mr Manna has relied on a decision dated December 8, 2010 in W.P. No.23997 (W) of 2010 (Beni Madhab Mondal & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Mr Banerjee has 2 said that, on the facts, the decision has no manner of application to this case, especially when the allegation is that the defendants in the petitioners' pending suit have been preventing the petitioners from cultivating the lands.
No court or authority has decided that the petitioners have right to cultivate the lands in question. Neither the police are authorised to decide the question, nor do I find any reason to decided it in exercise of power under art.226.
True it is that the provisions of rr.290 and 295 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 have empowered the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to decide the question. The decision cited to me supports this position of law. But in this case there is no scope for relegating the petitioners to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.
The petitioners have already filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration of title. They have claimed that they are the owners of the lands in question. The persons who are allegedly preventing them from cultivating the lands are the defendants in the suit, and the order of the Civil Court is that the parties to the suit should maintain status quo. This cannot lead to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to cultivate the lands.
In my opinion, until the question is decided by the Civil Court, there is no question of entertaining the allegation of inaction on the part of the police. The petitioners are free to approach the Civil Court seeking reliefs according to law. But they are not entitled to any relief from the Writ Court.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) sr(c); ab(f)