28 Ranajit (AR.CT) 31.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 21124 OF 2026 Sri Bibekananda Ghosh & Ors. -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Shyamal Roy ….for the petitioners. Mr. Nirmalendu Bera, Ms. Tanima Nasndy ….for the respondent nos.7 to 10. Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Mr. Subhandu Basu ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that in spite of decision taken by appropriate forum with regard to partition of property in question amongst co-sharers private respondents are disturbing peaceful possession of petitioners over property in question. Petitioners pray for direction upon concerned police authorities which will protect their right over property in question. 3. State respondents and respondent nos.7 to 10 are represented by learned advocates. 4. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed a communication dated 24th August, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Anandapur Police Station and same is taken on record. It is submitted that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 5. However, on behalf of respondent nos.7 to 10 it is submitted that property in question was partitioned by compromise (solenama) amongst co-sharers. There is a dispute with regard to Plot no.88 under Mouza Kendraisol and it is further submitted that private respondents are in possession of said land. 6. However, such submission made on behalf of respondent nos.7 to 10 is disputed by learned advocate representing petitioners. 7. From submissions made on behalf of parties, it appears that issue centers around land situates under Plot no.88, Mouza- Kendraisol and petitioners as well as private respondents are claiming possession over the said land. 8. Police authority is not appropriate authority to decide inter se rights of the parties over the land in question. 9. If petitioners find that their right over land is infringed by private respondents, in that event petitioners need to approach appropriate forum/authority in pursuit of remedy. 10. Hence, writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. . 11. However, this order shall not preclude petitioners to take steps in accordance with law, if so advised. 12. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2