18.08.2025 Sl. No.21(DL) Ct. No.42 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 16100 of 2023 Swarnalata Maity @ Swarnalata Maiti Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Praloy Bhattacharjee, Mr. Koushik Roy …for the Petitioner. Mr. Soumik Dey …for the State. Mr. Sandip Das, Mr. Dipankar Bhandari …for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9. 1. By the present writ petition, direction is sought for against the respondent authorities to demolish the illegal construction made by the private respondents. 2. The petitioner alleges of illegal and unauthorised construction undertaken by the private respondent Nos.8 and 9 over Plot No.627, J.L. No.37, Khatian No.1116 under Mouza Radhakrishnanagar, Police Station-Patharpratima, District-South 24-Parganas, measuring an area of 2 decimals. The petitioner further contends that she constructed two-storeyed building comprising of three rooms on each floor for residential purpose and she allowed the private respondents to reside in the property on condition that they would vacate the premises whenever the petitioner desires the 2 same. The petitioner requested the private respondents to vacate the premises on 30th May, 2017. Since the property was not vacated, the petitioner filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.183 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kakdwip, South 24-Parganas where an order of status quo has been passed. During the subsistence of the order of status quo the private respondents illegally constructed a residential home on the land of the petitioner without any permission from the concerned authority. The petitioner made a representation on 24th April, 2023 before the Pradhan of the local gram panchayat, however, no steps have been taken. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Praloy Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that necessary direction be issued upon the respondent No.5 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24th April, 2023. 4. Mr. Soumik Dey, learned Advocate for the State submits that there were three rooms in the property-in- question. For the last 20 years, one room is in possession of the petitioner and two others in possession of the private respondents. The civil suit is pending by and between the parties. The matter is civil in nature. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. He files report furnished by the Officer-in-Charge, Patharpratima Police Station dated 19th May, 2025 which is taken on record. 3 5. Mr. Sandip Das, learned Advocate for the private respondent Nos.8 and 9 submits that they are in possession of the property-in-question for the last 40 years. There are no new structures undertaken by the private respondents. The entire dispute by and between the parties is sub judice before the civil court which has passed status quo order. He seeks for dismissal of this writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.183 of 2017 before the learned Judge (Junior Division) at Kakdwip seeking for recovery of possession and injunction. In the said suit, learned civil court passed the following order: “that both parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the suit property and the defendants are restrained from changing the nature and character of the suit property as exist today till 03-07-2017. Issue notice upon defendants to show-cause within 10 days from receiving of the notice as to why the temporary injunction as prayed by plaintiff shall not be granted. Plaintiff is directed to comply provision of u/o-39 rule-3(a) and 3(b) of CPC. Plaintiff is directed to file requisites at once. To 03.07/2017 for S/R and A/D appearance of defendants.” 7. Thus, it appears that the entire dispute is sub judice before the learned civil court. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 16100 of 2023 stands dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 4 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)