17.09.2026 Sl. No. 30 Ct No. 758 SG WPA 8795 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 Bivas Chaudhuri & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray. …for the petitioners Ms. Sudipa Banerjee, Mr. Koushik Roy. …for the State Md. Abdur Rakib, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar. …for respondent in CAN 1 of 2025 1. The petitioners claim joint ownership of land measuring 4 cottahs 13 chittaks 22 square feet at Mouza- Kalikapur, comprised in R.S. Dag Nos. 356/406, R.S. Khatian Nos. 354/360 and KMC Premises No. 419, by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 29th January, 1990. They state that their names have been mutated in the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and that they have regularly paid municipal taxes. The petitioners have been residing in the United States of America since 2021 and had entrusted supervision of the property first to Subhas Chaudhuri, the brother of petitioner no. 1, and thereafter to their nephew, Abhishek Pal Chowdhury. It is alleged that, sometime in 2023, respondent no. 6 displayed a notice claiming ownership of the land, followed by a promotional poster for a project 2 described as "Prithviraj Palace" to be developed by Saha Construction, and also constructed a security guard's hut on the land. According to the petitioners, the notice was removed following their objection. They thereafter complained to the police and filed two applications under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Their grievance is that the police authorities have nevertheless failed to protect their possession. In these circumstances, the petitioners seek, inter alia, a writ of mandamus restraining respondent nos. 5 to 8 from unlawfully interfering with the property and a direction upon the police authorities to afford them protection. 2. CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed by Elogix Software Private Limited, which also claims right, title and interest in the property in question and seeks leave to intervene in the writ petition. 3. The materials placed before the Court disclose rival claims relating to the title to and possession of the property in question. Adjudication of those claims would require examination of disputed facts and evidence and cannot appropriately be done in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. The petitioners may seek protection of their asserted rights in appropriate proceedings before the competent civil court. A prayer for police protection cannot be given to secure possession of. 5. In Roshina T. V. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329, the Supreme Court reiterated that disputes between 3 private parties relating to possession of immovable property and involving disputed questions of fact are ordinarily to be adjudicated by the civil court and not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for. WPA 8795 of 2024 is, accordingly, disposed of without any order as to costs. 7. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the competent civil court and agitate their grievances in accordance with law, if so advised. 8. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of as infructuous. 9. Parties shall be entitled to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Anuj Singh, J.)