12.08.2026 rpan/12 FMA 681 of 2026 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026 [App. order] Mukalesur Rahaman - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Md. Mansoor Alam, Ms. Nargis Mansoor, Mr. Md. Asjad Mansoor … for the Appellant. Mr. Anup Dasgupta, Mr. Yudhisthir Maity … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, Mr. Paulami Chakraborty … for the Respondent nos.4 to 8. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present appeal has been preferred by one Mukalesur Rahaman (in short, Mukalesur) challenging an order dated 6th April, 2026 passed in a writ petition, being WPA 6197 of 2026. The said writ petition was preferred praying for a direction upon the Officer-in-charge, Lalgola Police Station to consider a complaint submitted by Mukalesur on 11th February, 2026 and to start an appropriate case against the private respondent nos.4 to 12. Mukalesur also sought for protection to his life and property. The said writ petition was preferred alleging inter alia that Mukalesur purchased a plot of land vide deed no.6314 of 2023 from one Amin Sk and Samaun Ali which was registered on 13th April, 2023. Subsequent thereto, Mukalesur came to learn that the private respondents have manufactured and obtained a forged deed of kobala bearing the same number, being deed no.6314 of 2023. Mr. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the imminent threat to life and property of Mukalesur and refused to direct the police authorities to protect Mukalesur. The acts of the private respondents tantamount to violation of the constitutional right available to Mukalesur and in such circumstances, the learned single Judge ought to have intervened and issued specific direction for protection of life and property of Mukalesur. Such argument was glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned on the same. The learned advocates appearing for the State/respondents and the private respondent nos.4 to 8 deny and dispute the contention of Mukalesur. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, Mukalesur has already preferred a title suit, being Title Suit no.253/2022 inter alia praying for cancellation of the deed no.6314/2023 which he alleges to have been manufactured by the private respondents. The said suit is still pending. 2 Mukalesur has also not availed the remedies to which he is entitled to under the BNSS Act. In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge rightly observed that the police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties over the property in question. However, the learned single Judge granted liberty to Mukalesur to approach the appropriate forum and also ensured that the police authority would maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and as such, no interference is called for in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and its connected application are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 3