Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43109 (CAL)

SWAPAN NAIYA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/23837/2026 · 2026-09-23

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

14 Ranajit (AR.CT) 23.09.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 23837 OF 2026 Swapan Naiya -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bapin Baidya, Mr. Saumen Gayen, Mr. Sandipan Maitra ….for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar …for the respondent nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Abhijit Ray, Mr. Bidhayak Lahiri, Mr. Vinayak Chaubey ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition petitioner has prayed for direction upon concerned police authorities which will preserve his right to cultivate the land in question. Petitioner is claiming to be bargadar in respect of agricultural land in question. In support of such contention reliance is placed on orders dated 31st July, 2023 and 8th June, 2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 3rd Court, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. According to petitioner orders passed by the civil court on 31st July, 2023 and 8th June, 2026 are required to be complied with. 3. State respondents and respondent nos.5 to 7 are represented by learned advocates. 4. It is submitted on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 7 that these respondents are not defendants in Title Suit No.533/2023. Therefore, orders passed by the civil court on 31st July, 2023 and 8th June, 2026 do not bind them. 5. This Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of private respondents that respondent nos.5 to 7 are not parties to Title Suit No.533/2023 and as such orders passed therein are not applicable so far these respondents are concerned. 6. If petitioner finds that his right to cultivate the land in question being bargadar is denied by private respondents, in that event petitioner needs to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy. 7. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide inter se right of the parties over said agricultural land in question. 8. However, concerned police authority is directed to maintain peace and tranquility at the locale and to see no untoward incident takes place. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2