05.08.2026 rpan/13 FMA 642 of 2026 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026 Abhinandan Pal & Others – Versus – The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Sakabda Roy, Mr. Sourath Nath Dutt, Mr. Arnab Dutt … for the Appellants. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. Despite service, the respondents are unrepresented. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 9th April, 2026 passed in WPA No. 7012 of 2026. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed of. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the instant appeal are that the writ petitioners/appellants preferred a writ petition primarily seeking a direction upon the police authorities to take appropriate steps to register a police case and conduct a fair investigation into the allegations contained in the complaints lodged by the writ petitioners on 26th February, 2025 and 17th December, 2025. Records reveal that the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9th April, 2026 with the observation that, based on the complaints lodged by the appellants, the concerned police authority had filed two reports, being Junput Coastal Police Station Non- Cognizable Report No. 139 of 2025, dated 18th March, 2025, and Junput Coastal Police Station Non-Cognizable Report No. 511 of 2025, dated 13th October, 2025. It was further observed that, based on the application filed by the appellants, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the said Code) had also been initiated. The learned Magistrate had called for reports from the jurisdictional police authority as well as the BL&LRO. Noting that the said proceeding is still pending for adjudication, the learned Judge restrained himself from making any observation so that the same would not influence such proceeding. The learned Judge further observed that the issue in question was civil in nature, requiring the parties to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of their inter se rights, and that the police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide the rights of the parties over the land in question. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants are aggrieved by the observation that the issue in question is civil in nature and, accordingly, the parties were required to approach the civil court for adjudication of their inter se rights. From the records, it appears that a proceeding under Section 145 of the said Code is pending before the concerned learned Magistrate for final adjudication. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate, after following the procedure prescribed under the said provision, may declare who is/are entitled to possess the particular piece of land and may also prescribe appropriate preventive measures to ensure that such possession is not disturbed. The learned Magistrate may also restore possession to the person(s) entitled to possess the same. If, in addition thereto, any dispute arises regarding the title to the property, it is needless to state that the parties have to approach the appropriate civil court for determination of that question. In view thereof, we dispose of the appeal and the connected application by modifying the order impugned to the extent that the 2 concerned learned Magistrate shall dispose of the proceeding under Section 145 of the said Code, being Misc. Case No. 217 of 2024, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties thereto. With these observations and order, the appeal and its connected application is, thus, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to the costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 3