05.08.2026 Item No.14 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra FMA 921 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 Timir Baran Hatai - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Subhojit Seal, Mr. Soumya Khan, Ms. Sneha Dutta ….for the appellant Mrs. Indrani Chakraborty, Mrs. Sarda Sha ....for the State Mr. Anirban Mitra, Mr. Amit Halder, Mrs. Madhumita Sadhukhan …..for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 Mr. Iftekar Munshi ….for the respondent nos. 7 to 9 Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present appeal has been preferred challenging a judgment dated 23rd June, 2026 passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition being WPA 23367 of 2025. The said writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein alleging, inter alia, that the appellant entered into a development agreement pertaining to a property being ‘the G+4 storied newly constructed building, lying and situated at the premises being No.23, Abhedananda Road, P.S. Burtolla, K.M.C. Ward no.16, Kolkata-700006’ (hereinafter referred to as the said property) with the original owners being the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 in the writ petition. On the strength of such agreement, the appellant demolished the existing structure on the said property and raised construction upon obtaining necessary sanction from competent authorities. On 7th September, 2025, a banner in the name of the respondent no.5 in the writ petition was illegally installed at the front gate side of the new structure and the respondent no.6 with his associates assembled in front of the building and entered into the building by breaking open the padlock in the temporary gate of tin, installed in front side of the ground floor of the new building. On the rudiments of such averments, the writ petition was preferred praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents ‘to act as per law and to forthwith take due steps against the illegal criminal activities of the private respondent no.5 and 6 and their men, agent and associates’ and ‘to remove the illegal occupation and/or criminal trespass by the private respondent no.5 and 6 and their men, agent and associates into the subjected property of the petitioner’. The said writ petition, upon contested hearing, was disposed of by an order dated 25th September, 2025 observing, inter alia, that ‘the police authorities would ensure that trespassers are not allowed to use the property. To that effect, if there is any violation of law, it would be incumbent upon the 2 police authorities to ensure that peace and tranquility is maintained’. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition preferred an appeal being MAT 1855 of 2025, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 3rd December, 2025 setting aside the order impugned and remanding the writ petition for fresh consideration. Subsequent thereto, the writ petition was heard and disposed of observing, inter alia, that ‘petitioner is required to approach Civil Court for adjudication of the issue involved herein in order to ensure right of the petitioner in connection with the property in question and to evict respondent nos. 5 & 6’. Mr. Seal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that while disposing of the appeal, the appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration of a disputed question referred to in paragraph 20 of the judgment. However, the order impugned in the present appeal has not been passed in consonance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 23rd June, 2026. He argues that it would be explicit from the averments made in the application filed under section 163(2) of the BNSS preferred by the applicant/respondent no.6 herein that the Uttar Kolkata Sanhati Sporting Club (hereinafter referred to 3 as the said club) and the applicant had no right, title and interest or possession over the said property and that they had illegally trespassed into the property upon breaking open the padlock. Without taking note of such averments, the learned single Judge relegated the matter again to the competent Civil Court for consideration. He contends that the Hon’ble Appeal Court was conscious that a disputed question of fact was involved and upon arriving at a finding that such disputed question of fact can be considered by the writ Court, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In view thereof, the learned single Judge ought not to have relegated the parties to the Civil Court without deciding the dispute as remanded for consideration. Even if the lis involves disputed question, the same can certainly be decided by the writ Court. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553. Mr. Munshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 9 in the present appeal adopts the argument, as advanced, by Mr. Seal and submits that the respondent nos.5 and 6 have no right, title and interest in the property and they have illegally 4 trespassed into the property. The trespassers have no right to use the property. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 denies and disputes the contentions of Mr. Seal and Mr. Munshi and submits that from the letter dated 29th August, 2023, annexed at page 246 of the stay application, issued by the appellant, it would be explicit that the appellant himself agreed to accommodate the said respondents in a portion of the said property. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the application under Section 163(2) of the BNSS, Mr. Mitra further contends that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 used one room at the ground floor and that the appellant has promised to allow the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to use one room at the ground floor of the new building. In view thereof, the respondent nos.5 and 6 cannot now be forcibly dispossessed from the portion they occupy. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The writ Court’s initial direction in the writ petition was that ‘the police authorities would ensure that trespassers are not allowed to use the said property’. The earlier coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the 5 said order in appeal and remanded the writ petition for fresh consideration. The said judgment of the coordinate Bench dated 3rd December, 2025 was neither challenged nor any application for modification of the said judgment was preferred by the appellant or by the owners being the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. From the averments made in all the documents, being a part of the present proceedings, it cannot be ruled out that the lis involves serious disputed questions of fact. Such factual dispute, in our opinion, can be decided only after leading evidence, oral as well as documentary. The writ Court with its self-imposed restriction and discipline cannot proceed to decide highly disputed questions of fact which need elaborate evidence of minute details which are lacking in this case. A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided and not observations made in the facts of any particular case. There is no dispute as regards the proposition of law laid down in the judgment delivered in the case of ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. (supra), however the same is distinguishable on facts. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly 6 observed that the appellant ‘is required to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the issue involved herein in order to ensure right of the petitioner in connection with the property in question and to evict respondent nos. 5 and 6’. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 7