Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30248 (CAL)

JHUMA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/16729/2026 · 2026-07-24

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

11. 24.07.2026. Court No.05. (Pritam) WPA 16729 of 2026. Jhuma Mondal -Vs.- State of West Benghal & Ors. Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Ms. Indrani Roy, Mr. H.K. Jha. ......for the petitioner. Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Ms. Ankana Sarkar. ......for the State. Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Sauradeep Dutta, Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee, Ms. Diya Ghoshal, Mr. Himadree Ghosh. ......for the respondent no.5. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner prays for a direction upon the concerned police authorities, which would facilitate the petitioner to raise boundary wall. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an ad interim order of injunction was passed by civil court on 12th July, 2016 thereby restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit property. 3. According to the petitioner in consideration of the order passed by the civil court on 12th July, 2016, concerned authorities by this time ought to have extended 2 assistance thereby permitting the petitioner to raise boundary wall. 4. State respondents and private respondents are represented by learned advocates and it is jointly submitted that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. Learned advocate representing private respondent no.5 has disputed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. On perusal of ad interim order of injunction dated 12th July, 2016, it appears that civil court restrained defendants from interfering with peaceful possession over the suit property; if petitioner finds that said ad interim order is not complied with, in that event petitioner needs to approach civil court in accordance with law. 6. Police authorities are not the appropriate authorities to decide inter se right of the parties over the land in question. 7. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. 9. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)