Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4661 (CAL)

KUTUBUDDIN LASKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/489/2025 · 2025-02-28

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L 17 28.02.2025 Bpg. ct.no.35 W.P.A.489 of 2025 Kutubuddin Laskar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sandipan Maity. …for the petitioner. Mr. Jayanta Samanta Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri. …for the State-respondents. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the private respondents as he furnished information to the local police authorities as well as the superior police officers, however, in spite of such information, no steps were taken and the private respondents pursued their illegal act and activities, thereby preventing the petitioner from enjoying the usufructs of the property particularly the pisiculture which he had been carrying on. Report has been submitted by the State wherein it has been stated that on 31.10.2024 information was received by the police authorities but the local enquiry did not reveal any substance. However, if the petitioner had been carrying out his 2 pisiculture activities and is restrained by any individual including the present respondents and the petitioner is the person who has right for carrying out the pisiculture and in case he informs the police station, the police authorities would keep a vigil and ensure that there is no breach of peace or tranquility or any untoward incident resulting from the petitioner pursuing his livelihood. If the police authorities are doubtful regarding the right, title and ownership, they would be at liberty to check prima facie whether in the previous years the petitioner had been carrying out such pisiculture, conduct a local enquiry and take steps so that the livelihood of the petitioner is not at stake. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 489 of 2025 is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Report submitted by the State be kept with the record. A copy of the report be handed over to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)