Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Nazrul Haque vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 February, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
22.2.2019
Court No. 19
Item No. 4
Ashoke
W.P. 15516(W) of 2018
Sk. Nazrul Haque
-versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee.
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
Mr. Tarak Karan.
... For the State.
On the last occasion, Mr. Mayukh Mitra, learned advocate, sought leave to
intervene in the matter on behalf of some of the members of a private club.
Mr. Mitra was directed to file an appropriate application for addition of party.
Today, at the time of second call, Mr. Mitra is not present. At the first call,
the matter was adjourned due to non-appearance of the State respondents, when
Mr. Mitra submitted that his client had not given him any instruction to file any application as directed by this Court.
It appears that there is a dispute regarding petitioner's enjoyment of Plot No.176, Raja Subodh Chandra Mallik Square corresponding to C.S. Dag No. 523, C.S. Khatian No. 299 being part of C.S. Dag No. 524 and 529 in Mouza Bade Raipur, J.L. No. 34, R.S. No. 6, Touji No. 151, Pargana Khaspur, Police Station Jadavpur, allegedly belonging to Idan Banu Bibi, Hasna Banu Bewa, Sheikh Samsuddin, Sheikh Rahimuddin, Jarina Bibi, Jhanara Bibi. The petitioner is the registered power of attorney holder of these persons who are claiming to be the original owners of the property-in-question.
The allegation of the petitioner is that whenever the petitioner has tried to erect a boundary wall around the premises, some unknown persons kept on obstructing such construction work. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. 29929(W) of 2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated December 14, 2017 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, giving liberty to the petitioner to apply before the concerned police station for police help so that he would be able to construct the boundary wall on the property in question. Pursuant to the said direction the police protection was given to the petitioner. The petitioner could not raise the boundary wall even after such protection was given.
Again, this writ petition has been filed on the self-same cause of action with similar prayers. The petitioner's prayer is that police protection should be given to the petitioner when the petitioner raises the boundary wall once again.
On the last occasion, the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur Police Station, was directed to file a report upon causing an enquiry on the allegation raised by the petitioner and the submissions made by Mr. Mayukh Mitra who wanted to intervene in the matter. Today, the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur Police Station, has filed a report. According to the report it appears that on the basis of the power of attorney given by the alleged original owners of the said land, the petitioner was granted right to exercise, carry out, execute and perform any of the acts, deeds, things, powers or authorities in relation to the said land in question being Plot No. 176, Raja Subodh Chandra Mallick Road, Kolkata - 700092. According to the police authorities, the parcha which was shown to them was in the name of one Aainuddin Sk. The assessment record of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was in the name of Sk. Bachhu and the Khajna receipt was in the name of Sk. Bachhu. The petitioner claimed that the present owners were the heirs of such Bachhu.
The police authorities interrogated some persons belonging to the United Boys' Club, namely Tarak Das, as also some persons from Khatal Math Raksha Committee namely Kaushik Das alias Babul. According to those persons, Sitaram Sharma and Sankar Shaw were the tenants residing by the side of the land in question. Bholanath Shaw and Sadhon Chandra Gupta also reside by the side of the land who run some shops. It has been mentioned that there were structures of United Boys' Club and Bapujinagar Khatal-Maath Raksha Committee on the land in question. They have produced Aadhar and Epic Card. The petitioner also stated to police authorities that he was in the process of collecting the RS. and L.R record. The office of the Block Land and Land Reforms officer concerned could not hand over any records to the police. The petitioner's case is that such structures have come up later on.
Under such circumstances, neither this Court, nor the police authorities are empowered to decide the question of title and possession of the said land in question. A blanket order allowing the petitioner to construct a wall in view of the above facts with police help cannot be passed. The Civil Court is the appropriate forum to determine the title or ownership of the property in question. A lawful owner of any property cannot be prevented from using his property by any third parties but, in case of any dispossession or encroachment the lawful owner has to approach the Civil Court.
However, if there is any chance of physical injury on nuisance which the petitioner may suffer at the instance of the miscreants or hooligans who are allegedly trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner, the police authorities will ensure that peace and tranquility is maintained in the locality and in case of any complaint of commission of any offence the police authorities should act in accordance with law in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The writ petition is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) 1 4