08 Ranajit (AR.CT) 27.07.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 15684 OF 2026 Sk. Munnaf Ali -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Goutam Dinda, Mr. Sandip Ray ….for the petitioner. Ms. Ipsita Ghosh ….for the respondent nos.4 & 5. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Mr. Dipjyoti Chakraborty ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition seeking direction upon the concerned police authorities to take steps which would protect right of the petitioner as bargadar in respect of agricultural land in question. 3. State respondents and respondent nos.4 & 5 are represented by learned advocates. 4. On hearing learned advocates representing the parties, it appears that a suit is pending which was instituted by the petitioner for asserting his right as bargadar in connection with agricultural land in question. 5. At this stage, during pendency of the suit claiming right of the petitioner as bargadar no mandamus is warranted thereby directing the concerned police authorities to take steps which would preserve right of the petitioner as bargadar. 6. It is made clear that Court is not considering in the present proceeding if petitioner is bargadar or not in respect of agricultural land in question. 7. On behalf of the petitioner an order of a coordinate Bench dated 26th June, 2008 is relied upon passed on a writ petition being WPA 26883 of 2006. However, on perusal of the said order dated 26th June, 2008, it appears that the coordinate Bench proceeded on the premise that competent authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, recorded names of the petitioners as bargadars in respect of agricultural land in question. But in the present case, it is not demonstrated before this Court that the petitioner is bargadar in respect of land in question and suit is pending claiming petitioner’s right as bargadar. Therefore, order of the coordinate Bench dated 26th June, 2008 does not come in aid of the petitioner. 8. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 9. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2