12.08.2026 Item No.21 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 354 of 2026 Anirban Das & Ors. - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arif Ali Mr. Sarban Bhattacharjee …. For the petitioners Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar …. For the State respondents Mr. Biswarup Biswas Mr. Kajal Ray …for the respondent no.5 The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners claiming to be public-spirited persons and residents of Mahendra Roy Lane praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to take steps against the illegal construction of boundary wall on the playground admeasuring about 95 cottahs on Mahendra Roy Lane, Kolkata. Mr. Ali, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners strenuously argues that the private respondents are attempting to encroach upon a playing field measuring about 95 cottahs on Mahendra Roy Lane which is used as a play-ground by the children of the locality. The private respondents are attempting to construct a boundary wall and to utilize the land as their personal property. Such illegality was complained against but the authorities did not take appropriate steps to restrain the 2 private respondents from raising such boundary wall without proper demarcation. A representation submitted to that effect was also not responded to. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.5, however, denies and disputes such contention of Mr. Ali and submits that there was a dispute as regards 7.5 cottahs of land situated at premises no.6/9B, Mahendra Roy Lane and the respondent no.5 also enjoys right to passage to the said land from 6/3B, Mahendra Roy Lane. The ownership and possession of the said respondent no.5 over the land was sought to be interfered with by one Navodaya Club (in short, the said Club) which ultimately led to preference of a title suit being T.S. No.89 of 1991 against the said Club. The said suit was decreed on 21st July, 1994 and subsequently, the appeal preferred against the same by the said Club was also dismissed on 30th April, 1996. In view thereof, the private respondent wanted to demarcate and construct a boundary wall around the land belonging to him. The members of the said Club, however, restrained the respondent no.5 from raising such boundary wall and aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.5 had to file a writ petition being WPA 7065 of 2013 which upon contested hearing was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 10th April, 2023. By the said order, the Court directed Topsia police station to post a police picket at the premises at the cost of the writ petitioner 3 therein. It was also directed that Topsia police station shall be responsible for law and order and shall ensure that there is absolutely no breach of peace or any interference by any person while the petitioner reconstructs his boundary wall. In the said writ petition, the said Club was impleaded as a private respondent. The present writ petition has now been preferred by a functionary of the said Club to interfere with the right of the respondent no.5 over the land in question. Mr. Ray, learned Government Pleader assisted by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the State respondents and denies the contention of Mr. Ali and submits that on 20th July, 2026, the police authorities took steps to ascertain the factual position concerning the area enclosed by the boundary wall by obtaining an inspection and measurement report from an empanelled licenced building surveyor of KMC. There has been no violation of any statutory obligation on the part of the State authorities. Let the report, as filed, be kept on record. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Navodaya Club happens to be a party to the writ petition preferred by the respondent no.5 earlier and upon considering the contention of the said Club, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the writ petitioner therein to raise a boundary wall. No appeal 4 has been preferred by the Club against the said order. The said order passed in the writ petition has already been acted upon. It is also not disputed that there was a civil dispute amongst the respondent no.5 and the said Club which led to institution of a title suit which was ultimately decreed in favour of the respondent no.5. No material has been placed before this Court to establish that boundary wall has been raised encircling any Government land. In the said conspectus, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, 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 with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)