Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16078 (CAL)

TAPAN BAURI AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/8316/2026 · 2026-04-20

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

46 2200..0044..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 8316 of 2026 Sri Tapan Bauri & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Ms. Ritika Yadav …for the petitioners Mr. Samiran Mondal Mr. Abhinaba Das Mr. Nitish Samanta …for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 Mr. Sambuddha Dutta Mr. Kaustav Chatterjee …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that their right to cultivate the land in question is being disturbed by the private respondents prompting the petitioners to approach the concerned police authority seeking steps to ensure right of cultivation in respect of land in question. 3. Learned advocate representing State respondents has disputed the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and it is submitted that a suit is pending before the Civil Court at the instance of the private 2 respondents. It is also contended on behalf of private respondents that private respondents have right to cultivate part of land in question excluding the part which vests with the State Government. 4. State respondents are represented by learned advocate who has filed a communication dated 8th April, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Beliatore Police Station, Bankura and same is taken on record. Copies of said communication are made over to the learned advocates representing the petitioners and private respondents. 5. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties it appears that both the petitioners and private respondents are claiming right over the land in question and suit is pending before the Civil Court at the instance of private respondents. Therefore, parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court in pursuit of their remedy. 6. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties over the land in question. However, concerned police authority is directed to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of. 3 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)