17.09.2026 Sl. No. 7 Ct No. 758 SG WPA 15844 of 2023 Gobinda Puri Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sanjib Kr. Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Nargish Parveen. …for the petitioner Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu. …for the State Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak. …for respondent nos. 6, 7 & 10 1. The petitioner claims co-ownership, by inheritance, of land measuring 1.40 decimals at Mouza-Chorki, J.L. No. 207, R.S. Khatian No. 15 and R.S. Plot Nos. 49 and 50. According to him, in 1996, he and his two brothers sold 36 decimals of land to Kashinath Das and Biswanath Das, respondent nos. 7 and 9 respectively, by a registered deed dated 9th September, 1996, and his family retained 1.04 decimals. He alleges that, on 18th June, 2023 respondent nos. 6 to 10 began constructing a boundary wall over the entire land. When the petitioner and his family objected, they were allegedly threatened and abused. 2. The petitioner approached Manbazar Police Station and thereafter submitted a written representation on 20th June, 2023 to the Superintendent of Police, the Sub- Divisional Police Officer and the Officer-in-Charge, but no 2 action was taken. He therefore seeks restraint against further encroachment and construction, registration of a case on the basis of his representation, and protection of his life and property. 3. The private respondents and the State submit that a Title Suit No. 421 of 2022 (Gobinda Chandra Puri v. Biswanath Das & Ors.), relating to the selfsame dispute was instituted before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Purulia on 12th August, 2022. They point out that respondent no. 9, Biswanath Das, died on 24th December, 2022, before the alleged incident, and that respondent no. 7, Kashinath Das, is stated to be completely visually impaired. The civil suit was dismissed for default on 20th August, 2024 owing to the plaintiff's non-prosecution. The respondents contend that the dispute is civil in nature and pray for dismissal of the writ petition, inter alia, for suppression of material facts. 4. The essential dispute relates to title to and possession of immovable property and has disputed questions of fact. Such questions cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329, the Supreme Court reiterated that disputes between private parties concerning possession of immovable property and involving disputed questions of fact are ordinarily to be adjudicated by the civil court. 3 5. For the reasons aforesaid, WPA 15844 of 2022 is disposed of without any order as to costs. 6. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the rival claims of the parties. They shall be at liberty to pursue their respective remedies before the competent forum in accordance with law. Nothing in this order shall prevent the petitioner from availing himself of any statutory remedy in respect of the alleged commission of a cognizable offence, if so advised. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Anuj Singh, J.)