Court No. 10 (1629) 21.07.2026 (JPD 56) (S. Banerjee) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 955 of 2026 Satyen Rozario Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arnab Saha Md. Shoaib Akhtar … for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ghosh Mr. Samar Rakshit … for the State Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in Title Suit No. 98 of 2026 praying for a direction upon the police authorities to take steps to ensure that the petitioner can continue with his possession in respect of the property in question till the final decision is arrived at by the civil court. Record reveals that Ankit Kumar Kedia filed Title Suit No. 96 of 2026 against Ajay Sah and others before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalpaiguri Sadar Court. The petitioner is the 5th defendant in 2 the said suit. Learned learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalpaiguri Sadar Court by an order dated May 2, 2026 allowed the prayer of the plaintiff, i.e., Ankit Kumar Kedia for ad interim order of injunction and the defendants including the petitioner were restrained from entering into the suit land for causing disturbance to the plaintiff, i.e., Ankit Kumar Kedia, in his peaceful enjoyment of the suit property and the defendants were further directed not to change the nature and character of the suit land till the next date of hearing. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff of the said suit accompanied by certain Tribal women came to the suit property on June 7, 2026 for taking forcible possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police authorities by a letter dated June 8, 2026. Learned advocate appearing for the State files a report of the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police Commissionerate dated July 1, 2026 which is taken on record. The report states that a civil suit is 3 pending between the parties and preventive proceeding under Section 126 of BNSS, 2023 against the concerned parties has been initiated with a view to maintain peace and tranquility and a strict vigil over the locality is being maintained to ensure that no breach of peace and cognizable office takes place. After going through the materials on record and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties this Court finds that there is a dispute with regard to possession in respect of an immovable property between private parties. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 98 of 2026 has also not been impleaded as party- respondents in this writ petition. Interse dispute between private parties pertaining to an immovable property cannot be decided by the police authorities. Since the civil court is in seisen over the dispute between the petitioner and the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 98 of 2026, the petitioner is left free to approach the civil 4 court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. The police authorities are duty bound to comply with the order and directions passed by the civil court. The police authorities are also under a statutory obligation to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. This writ petition stands disposed of by directing the police authorities to act in accordance with the directions passed by the civil court. The police authorities shall also maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)