Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pg. Protap Chandra Naskar & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 April, 2012
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
16 WP No. 1508 (W) of 2012
30.04.2012
pg. Protap Chandra Naskar & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. M.F. Rahaman
... For the petitioners
Mr. Gausul Alam
... For the State
Let the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court
today on behalf of the Block Development Officer,
Bishnupur-I Block, District - South 24-Parganas, be kept
on record.
Relying on two unreported judgments passed by a
Division Bench of this Court [FMA 290 of 2011 with CAN
897 of 2011, delivered on 29th April, 2011, and MAT 705
of 2011 with CAN 5131 of 2011, delivered on 12th July,
2011], the writ petitioners are essentially seeking
adjudication of a private ownership dispute existing
between the petitioners on one hand and the private
respondents on the other.
In the facts of the instant case, it is noted that the writ petitioners are praying, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the 2 nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 6, being the Pradhan of Julpia Gram Panchayat, situated in the district of South 24-Parganas, to give necessary permission by taking necessary fees for erecting a boundary wall (brick built) on the basis of their application dated 29th November, 2011.
From the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer, Bishnupur-I Block, District - South 24-Parganas, it appears that the writ petitioners' application dated 29th November, 2011, was not considered by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat in view of a petition dated 30th November, 2011, which was made by four persons, of whom Pulak Das is one of the private respondents in the instant writ proceeding. In the said petition dated 30th November, 2011, it was prayed that no sanction for permission to erect a boundary wall should be granted in favour of the writ petitioner no. 1 on the land-in-question since the said land had been purchased by their deceased father and uncle on 18th July, 1958, from one Kartic Chandra Das and after the demise of Kartic Chandra Das, the land-in-question had been further sold out by the 3 legal heirs of late Kartic Chandra Das in the year, 2002 and hence the second transaction of the same land is illegal. In the enquiry report it has been categorically stated that the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat has submitted before the Block Development Officer that the Panchayat authorities cannot decide actual ownership of the land and unless a decision is received from a competent court of law, they are not in a position to grant permission for erecting any boundary wall in favour of anybody.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, there is no iota of doubt that the two unreported judgments, which have been relied by the learned advocate for the petitioners, have no manner of application at all in the facts of the instant case. The two judgments are not authorities for the proposition that the writ Court should pass mandatory orders even where there is a palpable existence of a private dispute with regard to ownership and title of a land.
It is well settled that the writ Court ought not to enter into the realms of any existing private ownership disputes of land for the purpose of adjudicating any issue 4 concerning the same land. The question of title or ownership ought to be decided first by a competent civil court.
For reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)