Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36676 (CAL)

ASHUTOSH PAUL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/20467/2026 · 2026-08-27

Saugata Bhattacharyya

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10 Ranajit (AR.CT) 27.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 20467 OF 2026 Ashutosh Paul -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rajesh Mondal, Ms. Rajorna Muzmder ….for the petitioner. Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjya, Mr. Indranuj Dutta ….for the respondent nos.5 & 7. Mr. Rajdeep Mantha, Mr. Saikat Dey ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner prays for direction upon concerned police authorities which will protect right of petitioner over agricultural land in question. It is alleged that private respondents have raised fencing and started constructing pillars. 3. Learned advocate representing private respondents has opposed this writ petition and it is submitted that no construction was made on agricultural land in question by private respondents. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents appears on virtual mode. A communication dated 12th August, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Memari Police Station is filed today and same is taken on record. Copies of communication dated 12th August, 2026 are made over to learned advocates representing petitioner and respondent nos.5 to 7. 5. It is disclosed in communication dated 12th August, 2026 that a Non-Cognizable Report No.574/26 dated 4th August, 2026 was submitted on making preliminary enquiry and it is also disclosed in said communication that police authorities are keeping vigil so that no untoward incident takes place. 6. In view of submission made on behalf of petitioner, it is found that by presenting this writ petition petitioner prays for direction upon concerned police authorities to evict private respondents from agricultural land in question. 7. If petitioner finds that his right over agricultural land is infringed by private respondents, in that event petitioner needs to approach appropriate forum/authority in pursuit of remedy. 8. Police authority is not an appropriate authority to decide right over land in question. 9. However, concerned police authority is directed to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale and to see no untoward incident takes place. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2