Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26747 (CAL)

SRIKANTA BERA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/11700/2026 · 2026-07-07

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

69 0077..0077..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 11700 of 2026 Srikanta Bera Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Keshab Chandra Das Ms. Aparajita Mondal …for the petitioner Mr. Suryaneel Das Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee Ms. Sumita Sarkar …for the State Mr. Jit Ray …for the respondent no. 4 1. Matter is taken up for consideration in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner, State respondents and respondent no. 4. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is alleged resistance made by the respondent no. 4 in making construction in spite of permission granted by concerned panchayat authority. According to the petitioner once permission is accorded by the concerned panchayat authority to make construction respondent authority should not have obstructed the petitioner from making such construction. 3. It is contended on behalf of respondent no. 4 that after such permission was accorded by 2 the concerned panchayat authority in the month of December, 2025 suit was instituted by the respondent no. 4 where present petitioner is defendant and an ad interim order of injunction was passed on 17th March, 2026 thereby directing parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of suit property. It is also contended that respondent no. 4 is one of the co-sharers of the property in question wherein construction was attempted to be raised by the petitioner on obtaining permission from the concerned panchayat authority. 4. According to the petitioner permission was accorded by the concerned panchayat authority in the month of December, 2025 but subsequent thereto ad interim order of injunction was passed by the Civil Court in connection with aforesaid suit on 17th March, 2026 directing the parties to maintain status quo. In view of pendency of the suit petitioner being the defendant therein is required to approach the Civil Court, if construction work of the petitioner is obstructed by the respondent no. 4. 5. Right of the petitioner to raise construction based on permission as alleged to have been accorded by the concerned panchayat 3 authority ought not to be decided by the police authority. 6. However, concerned police authorities are directed to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)