ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0478422026 Ct. No.1 Sl. No.4 PG/KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE MAT 1567 of 2026 with I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 PROBIR KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Appearance: Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Ms. Shrobana Sengupta Mr. Kaushik Bandyopadhyay Ms. Sneha Sarkar …..Advocates For the Appellants Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Aditya Mondal Ms. Sudeshna Mondal …..Advocates For the Applicant I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2026 in WPA 20825 of 2026 Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Surojit Mukherjee ….Advocates For the Applicant in I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 in WPA 20825 of 2026 CORAM : RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CHIEF JUSTICE & ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. 2 / 9 DATE : 18.09.2026 FINAL ORDER ( per: Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge, CJ ) 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and with their consent, we are disposing off the Appeal. 3. The Appellants are before us, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2026 in WPA 20825 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has extensively canvassed the grounds before us, which can be summarised as under: (a) The Police Authorities are partisan and are not impartially performing their duties. (b) A political party was occupying Premises No. 42, Sadananda Road, Kolkata-700026, which was let out by Late Aparesh Mukherjee to Appellant No. 1, under a written agreement dated 01.04.2000. The said premises were utilised for establishing and operating a party office of a political party, for Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Ward No. 83. 3 / 9 (c) Sri Aparesh Mukherjee passed away on 19.01.2026. On 04.08.2026, at about 7.15 p.m., a large number of unidentified persons assembled around the premises and allegedly, forcibly entered into the party office by breaking the lock of the main entrance and forcefully dispossessed the Appellants. (d) They were allegedly carrying weapons and fire arms. The premises were vandalised and several articles, furniture, Computers, Television Set, Sound System, Wi-Fi devices, Electrical fittings, documents and other office articles, were damaged and/or removed. (e) The unidentified persons threatened the Appellants with physical harm. (f) Appellant No. 1 lodged a written Police complaint on 04.08.2026 before the Officer-in-Charge, Kalighat Police Station and requested for registration of an F.I.R. (g) No F.I.R. was registered by the Police authorities. The Police personnel attached to the Kalighat Police Station entered the premises, prepared an inventory of the articles lying therein on the basis of a General Diary Entry and affixed a padlock to the entrance of the premises. 5. It is submitted that Police should not have sealed the 4 / 9 premises. The Police should have handed over possession of the immovable property to the original Petitioners. The Police authorities are bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 13.08.2021 in the case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Fulkumari Paswan & Ors. (AST 37 of 2019) and other connected matter. 6. The learned Advocate General has contended that the submissions of the Appellants, will have to be substantiated. Without establishing the claims made by the Appellants, the Police authorities, in the face of a dispute between the Appellants and those claiming to be the landlord or a person possessing the property, cannot adjudicate on such disputes. This is a civil dispute. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Appellants should approach the Civil Court and get their rights established. 7. The learned Advocates representing the respective Applicants in Civil Application Nos. 1 and 2 of 2026 in WPA 20825 of 2026, which were also filed before the learned Single Judge, claim that the deceased Aparesh Mukherjee was not the owner of the Premises No. 42. He was a tenant. The Applicant in Civil Application No. 2 of 2026, claims to be the owner and title holder of the property. Aparesh 5 / 9 Mukherjee has illegally sub-let Premises No. 42 to the Appellants. The landlord of Premises No. 42 resides on the 1st Floor of the building and he claims to be the owner and possessor of the entire building. According to him, a false case is put up by the Appellants. 8. The learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Appellants never claimed to be the owners of the property. They have always maintained that they have a lease agreement with late Aparesh Mukherjee. They were in possession and the Police authorities should have restored their possession instead of applying a padlock. 9. We have considered the judgment delivered by this Court in Fulkumari Paswan (supra). A close look at the facts of the said case would clearly indicate that they are completely distinct and distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. In Fulkumari Paswan (supra), the Learned Division Bench of this Court noted that one, Ms. Saluja Motey was the focal point of the litigation. She was supported in her case by Fulkumari Paswan, who was her employer. Fulkumari Paswan was operating a Restaurant cum Bar under the business name ‘Golden Valley Restaurant’ in the heart of the city in Jalpaiguri. The premises were raided by the police on purported complaints that immoral acts are being committed in the said premises. 6 / 9 Police had sealed the said commercial establishment only on the complaint that there are immoral activities being purportedly committed inside the said commercial establishment. With a detailed judgment, the learned Division Bench of this Court concluded that the order of the concerned Magistrate directing the de-sealing/opening of Golden Valley Restaurant was not fit to be interfered with. This Court concluded that the impugned order could not be branded as being perverse or erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the case before us, there is a clear dispute as regards, who was in possession of Premises No.42. The Appellants claimed to be occupying the premises under an agreement with the deceased Aparesh Mukherjee. The Applicants, who have preferred Civil Applications, claimed to be the landlords of the entire property. They are willing to establish their title over the said property. The facts appearing from the records indicate to us that when the police arrived at the scene, the premises were empty and there were signs of physical altercation. The appellants have stated in their pleadings that on 04.08.2026 at 7:30 p.m., there was nobody inside the premises and the Appellants had applied a lock to the main door. 7 / 9 11. In the above backdrop, the police deemed it appropriate to create an inventory of the fixtures and the equipment that were found inside the premises. It is also stated before us that the said fixtures and equipment are being preserved by the police authorities. 12. In the above factual matrix, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the Appellants were not evicted by the police. The premises were empty and under a lock. The complaint by the Appellants reached the police station on the ground that the lock was broken and somebody had entered the premises. It is also canvassed by the Appellants that though they were not landlords, they have an agreement with a deceased person and they could not have been evicted from the premises either by the landlord or by his relatives or by the police. 13. In this backdrop, the learned Single Judge noticed that there was no material before him to conclude that the Appellants were forcibly evicted by the police authorities. Hence, the learned Single Judge recorded that since the civil rights of the parties are at issue, they would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court. We endorse the view of the Learned Single Judge for the reason that the police authorities do not have any jurisdiction to be judgmental and draw a conclusion that a 8 / 9 particular person deserves to be put in possession of a disputed property. It is for the Civil Court to decide on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, as to who establishes his/her possession and who should, therefore, be put in possession of the suit property. 14. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has drawn an appropriate conclusion, which cannot be faulted. This appeal being devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Learned advocate for the Appellants submits that since the Applicants in Civil Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 in W.P.A. 20825 of 2026, had also approached the learned Single Judge and were given audience in the hearing and their submissions were also recorded after hearing the learned Senior Advocate, Sri Subir Sanyal, that these Applicants may be arrayed as Respondents in the present appeal. Hence, Civil Application No.1 and 2 of 2026 are allowed by consent, to the extent of adding these Applicants as Respondents in the appeal. Addition be carried out within a week’s time. Re-verification is dispensed with. 16. Learned Advocates appearing for the Applicants have caused their appearance in the hearing on the appeal. 9 / 9 17. The issue as to whether the police, in order to restore law and order and protect the rights of all the claimants have locked the premises and in the backdrop of the submission of the Appellants as to what right does the Appellants have to lock the premises, are left open for the Civil Court to decide, since, prima facie, we find that the police has only protected the property in the backdrop of two groups claiming to have a right over the property. 18. Parties are at liberty to act upon the print-out copy of this order obtained from the Official Website of the Calcutta High Court. (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) CHIEF JUSTICE