December 11, 2025 (17) ARDR WPA 17662 of 2025 Pratyay Batabyal Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Avijit Ganguly, Adv. Swapna Roy, … for the petitioner. Adv. Debasis Kar, Adv. Husen Mustafi, …for the respondent no. 6. Adv. Ashish Kumar Guha, Adv. Amartya Pal, …for the State. Report submitted by the State is taken on record. Case Diary as called for is produced. The petitioner alleges that the 4th private respondent has sold out the debottar property by claiming to be the owner of the same. The petitioner lodged complaint against the private respondent which was registered as FIR but there is not much progress in investigation of the case. It appears from the report submitted by the State that it has transpired during investigation that an arpannama was executed in respect of the property in question in favour of Madan Mohan Jeu Thakur by one Prakash Chandra Batabyal. Therefore the property is prima facie debottar property. The anticipatory bail prayer of the private respondents was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge as well as this Court despite which they have not been arrested. They are being represented before the learned Courts. The petitioner is aggrieved by the mode and manner of investigation. 2 Investigation is continuing since 2023. The accused persons are yet to be arrested. Upon consideration of mode, manner and progress in investigation, this Court is inclined to hold that the investigation needs to be monitored by the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly (Rural) who shall direct all necessary steps to be taken for conducting a fair, proper and impartial investigation. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)