Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 42950 (CAL)

SUTAPA DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/23713/2026 · 2026-09-23

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

09. 09. 23.09.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 23713 OF 2026 SUTAPA DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Saptarshi Kumar Kundu, Adv. …For Petitioner Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. …For State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. It is submitted by learned advocate representing petitioner that whenever a boundary wall is attempted to be erected and to install an iron gate, petitioner is being prevented by respondent nos.7, 8 & 9. Petitioner prays for direction upon the concerned police authority which would facilitate petitioner to raise boundary wall and install iron gate. 3. State respondents are represented by learned advocate who has filed a communication dated 8th September, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Charu Market Police Station, Kolkata and same is taken on record. Copy of the said communication is made over to learned advocate representing petitioner. 4. It is disclosed in the said communication that private respondents periodically require access to the space which might be impacted if petitioner is permitted to raise boundary wall and install iron gate. 5. This Court is not considering a case where rival parties are having their respective rights over a portion of property in question. If petitioner finds that she has [2] exclusive right over a particular part of the property in question and such right is being infringed by private respondents, in that event, petitioner needs to approach civil forum for relief. 6. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties over any part of the property in question. 7. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 9. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)