M/L 49 27.07.2026 sb Ct.3. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 15131 of 2026 Ranjit Shaw Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal) Ms. Debangana Dey … For the petitioner. Mr.Barun Ghosh Ms. Ankana Sarkar …. For the State. Mr. R. N. Chakraborty Mr. R. Singh … For the municipality. Mr. Dipayan Kundu Mr. Indranil Roy Chowdhury … For the respondent no.7. 1. Complaining illegal construction at the behest of the respondent no.7 and the failure on the part of the municipality to take appropriate steps, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the private respondent is not constructing on the property which he owns rather he is constructing on the property belonging to the petitioner. Accordingly, interference is sought for. 3. Respondent no.7 and the municipality are represented. 4. The learned advocate for the respondent no.7 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Title Execution Case No.13 of 2008 and the order passed by the learned 2 WPA 15131 of 2026 Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, dated 7th March, 2024, wherein the bailiff was directed to deliver the possession of the decreetal property peacefully unto and in favour of the private respondent. It is submitted that in execution of the decree, the decreetal property has already been made over to the respondent no.7 and the construction carried out by the respondent no.7, is on the aforesaid suit schedule property. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the Title Suit, being T.S. 1279 of 2025 filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.7. According to him, the said suit is for declaration and recovery of khas possession. The same is pending consideration before the Court of the learned 6th Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore. 5. The municipality is also represented and would submit that the adjudication is yet to take place and as such at this stage no interference is called for. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the respondent no.7 has already succeeded in the previous Title suit between the parties, and in execution thereof, has been able to obtain physical possession of the property. As per the case made out by the respondent no.7, the respondent no.7 carried out construction on the said suit schedule property. Though, the petitioner alleges that the private respondent has transgressed upon the petitioner’s property, the aforesaid factual issue is pending consideration before the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 1279 of 2025 which is for 3 WPA 15131 of 2026 declaration and recovery of khas possession. As such, I am of the view it should not be appropriate at this stage to decide any issue touching the merits of the Title Suit or to direct the municipality to take a decision inasmuch as any decision in this regard by the municipality would require demarcation of the property which, in my view, would tantamount to interfering with the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner to seek for appropriate relief from the Civil Court, if so advised. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)