August 13, 2026 Sl. No.6 Court No.1 s.biswas MAT 829 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Bipul Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Tarun Kanti Halder ... for the appellant Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra Mr. Madhu Jana Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar Ms. Puja Sonkar ... for the State Mr. S. M. Obaidullah Mr. Roni Chowdhury Mr. Tamal Mukhopadhyay ... for the respondent nos.8-11, 13 Affidavit of service as filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 30th March, 2026 passed in a writ petition being WPA 6218 of 2026. The said writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to act strictly in abidance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in order to compel the private respondents to forbear from entering on any part or portion of the purported undivided dwelling house situated at Chunakhali, J.L. No.59, Dag No.3410 and 3409 measuring 07 decimals and 19 decimals respectively under P.S. Basanti, District – South 24 Parganas, unless he/they obtain a decree of partition from a competent Court of law, in accordance with Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 with a further direction upon the State authorities to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, in the event of default of the private respondents. Mr. Halder, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a co-owner of family dwelling house and land as detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The respondent no.8 is the nephew of the appellant and is also a joint owner of the homestead property. The said respondent no.8 illegally sold the portion of the property to an outsider and on the strength of the same the alleged purchasers sought to interfere with the appellant’s ownership and possession over the said property. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant initially preferred an application under Section 163(2) of the BNSS, 2023 praying for maintenance of peace and tranquility. The appellant also lodged a complaint before the police authorities protesting against the illegal activities of the respondent no.8. However, the same was not responded to and the appellant has 2 been threatened of dire consequences. In view of such threat perception the learned single Judge ought to have issued necessary directions upon the police authorities to protect the appellant’s life and property. Mr. Halder argues that the learned single Judge did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act prior to dismissal of the writ petition. In view of the provisions of the said Act, the respondent no.8 cannot transfer any share of the dwelling house belonging to an undivided family. Mr. Obaidullah, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents denies and disputes the contention of the Mr. Halder and submits that no portion of the dwelling house has been transferred as would be explicit from the sale deed as annexed to the application filed in connection with the appeal. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the State and denies the contention of the appellant. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. A writ for police inaction has only a limited scope. Such relief cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined finally. From the arguments, as advanced, it is explicit that there exists 3 a civil dispute pertaining to the ownership and possession of a particular plot of land. The appellant neither did approach the competent civil forum nor did he pursue the remedies available under the BNSS Act. In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge rightly refused to exercise discretion in his favour. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and that as such no interference is called for. The appeal and the connected application are dismissed. It is however made clear that the dismissal of the present appeal shall not prevent the appellant from taking necessary steps before the competent forum, in accordance with law. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4