17. 17. 27.07.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 15815 OF 2026 JHARNA CHANDRA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Biswajit Sau, Adv. …For Petitioner Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, Adv. …For State Mr. Anirban Kar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Mahato, Adv. …For Respondent No.3 Mr. Ziaul Haque, Adv. …For Respondent No.4 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner by presenting this writ petition has prayed for direction upon the concerned police authority which would permit petitioner to have access to upper floors and rooftop of the premises in question. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that son and grandson of the petitioner have put padlock in the premises in a way which denies access of petitioner, who is staying at the ground floor of the said premises, to upper floors and rooftop. 4. Respondent no.3 is represented by learned advocate who has opposed this writ petition on the plea that a Title Suit being no.1524 of 2022 instituted by daughter of the petitioner is pending before the Civil Court and plaintiff therein has failed to obtain orders as prayed for. 5. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 12th July, 2026 of Officer- [2] in-Charge, Behala Police Station, Kolkata and same is taken on record. Copy of said communication is made over to the learned advocate representing petitioner. 6. It is also disclosed in the communication dated 12th July, 2026 that a title suit is pending before the Civil Court at the instance of daughter of the petitioner and issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 7. Respondent no.4 being daughter of petitioner is represented by learned advocate who supports the contention of the petitioner. In addition thereto it is also submitted that the premises in question is gifted by petitioner to the respondent no.4. 8. Having considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of pendency of aforesaid title suit, this Court finds that petitioner needs to approach Civil Court in pursuit of remedy. 9. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide whether steps taken by son and grandson of the petitioner thereby denying access to the petitioner to upper floors of the premises in question including rooftop is appropriate or not. 10. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. Writ petition stands dismissed. 12. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach appropriate forum, if so advised. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)