25.08.2026 Item No.04 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra MAT 986 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 Li Tai Yu - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Debasis Banerjee, Ms. Debamitra Bhardwaj, Ms. Sumitra Das, Ms. Srijata Mukherjee, Mr. Rakesh Jana ….for the appellant Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, A.G.P., Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar ....for the State Mr. Pijush Biswas, Mr. Sudipta Nayan Ghosh ….for the respondent nos.5 & 6 The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 26th May, 2026 passed in a writ petition being WPA 11930 of 2026. By the order impugned, the learned single Judge came to a finding that the dispute is civil in nature and that the appellant has adequate alternative and suitable remedy. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the writ petition was not preferred for adjudication of any dispute, question of title or ownership or proprietary interest in respect of the temple premises but was confined to seeking protection against unlawful acts of forcible dispossession, illegal obstruction of access to a place of worship. Initially for establishment and management of the temple, the persons then in the management and administration entered into a registered lease arrangement in respect of the temple premises with Sri Sri Iswar Prohladeshwar Jiu Shib Thakur. On the strength of such lease deed, the appellant has continued in possession. Such right was sought to be interfered with by the respondents herein and as such, the police authorities were approached but no steps were taken by the said authorities for maintenance of the peace and tranquillity. Mr. Biswas denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Banerjee and argues that the lease deed, as referred to by Mr. Banerjee, has already expired in the year 2004. The allegations levelled in the writ petition are absolutely unfounded and the private respondents are in occupation of the debottar property. Pursuant to our earlier order, a report of the Officer-in-Charge, Pragati Maidan Police Station has been placed by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader. Let a copy of the same, as produced, be kept on record. 2 In the said report, it has been stated, inter alia, that after expiry of the lease period, the building had already been vacated by the lessee and the Mondal family took back the possession of the building under the banner of Sri Sri Iswar Prohladeshwar Jiu Shib Thakur. It has been further stated that upon enquiry it surfaced that no crime or offence did happen regarding the possession of the property situated at 101/G, Matheswartala Road, Kolkata- 700046. The allegations of trespassing and illegal possession could not be substantiated and the entire dispute is civil in nature. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It is well-settled that a writ for police protection, has only a limited scope, as, and when the Court is approached for protection of right declared by a decree or by an order passed by the competent civil Court. It cannot be extended to cases when rights have not been determined finally by the civil Court. The dispute in the present matter, in our opinion, is civil in nature pertaining to ownership and possession of land in question. Such private dispute cannot be made the subject-matter of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 In view thereof, the learned single Judge has refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant and we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in appeal. 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. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4