28.07.2026 Item No.30 Ct. No. 05 PG W.P.A. 17105 of 2026 Tarak Pramanik Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. Saikat Mukherjee …..For the Petitioner Mr. Sukanta Ghosh Mr. Sudipta Ghosh ..For the State Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Mr. U.A. Dewan Mr. M. Masud….For the respondent no. 4 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The case, as made out on behalf of the petitioner is that private respondents occupied property including water body thereby preventing petitioner from performing pisciculture. Prayer is made for issuance of direction upon the concerned police authorities, which would permit the petitioner to have peaceful possession over the property in question. 3. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior advocate representing respondent no. 4 submits that respondent no.4 has not occupied property including water body in question. At the same time, it is also submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 4. State respondents are represented by learned advocate. 2 5. Having considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that petitioner is aggrieved by alleged steps taken by respondent no. 4 but the same is denied on behalf of respondent no. 4. 6. It appears that the issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. If petitioner has right to enjoy possession of the property including water body and such right is being infringed at the instance of private respondents, in that event, petitioner needs to approach civil forum in pursuit of remedy. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide right of the parties over the water body in question. 7. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)