29.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 11 Sandip MAT 1555 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Nemai Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Ms. Suva Gayen, Ms. Madhurima Dutta, Mr. Sk. Babulal …for the appellant. Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Suman Banerjee, Ms. Anyasha Das …for the State. Re : CAN 2 of 2026 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 10. 3. CAN 2 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay of 6 days in preferring the appeal. 4. From the averments made in paragraphs 4 to 6, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 5. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2026 is allowed. 6. The delay is condoned. 7. MAT 1555 of 2026 is regularised. Re : MAT 1555 of 2026 8. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 28, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 17361 of 2026. 9. In the writ petition the appellant assailed a report filed by the Revenue Inspector, Binpur – II Block, dated June 19, 2026. The said report was filed in connection with a writ petition being W.P.A. 13425 of 2026. On the basis of the report the said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the respondent no. 10 had constructed a house under a Government scheme, by maintaining side space from the mud wall house of the appellant. 10. Her Lordship was of the view that once the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the report and no objection was raised with regard to the report at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the said report could not be challenged by filing another writ petition. The report was not an independent exercise by the Revenue Inspector, but was filed pursuant to the direction of the Court. The said report will be relevant only for the disposal of the proceeding in which it was filed. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 11. The question is with regard to the right, title and interest of the appellant in respect of a plot of land and alleged construction over such plot of land. Allegation was that the construction was in violation of the provisions of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. 12. The writ Court is not the proper forum for decision as to whether the construction was on the land of the 2 appellant or not. However, in respect of construction under any beneficial scheme, the beneficiary has to show that the land over which the construction was to be made either belonged to the beneficiary or to someone through whom the beneficiary claimed. The report of the Revenue Inspector shall be restricted to adjudication of the writ petition, but in the suit for declaration of title the entire issue will be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led in the proceeding. 13. Needless to mention, the civil Court is the appropriate forum to decide the title of the appellant. If it is found that the respondent no. 10 did not have right, title, interest in respect of the land on which the construction under the beneficial scheme has been made, in that event the civil Court shall pass necessary orders by granting appropriate reliefs. 14. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The civil suit shall proceed on its own merit and on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. The order passed by the writ court, or by us in this appeal shall not influence the learned Judge while deciding the suit. 15. Her Lordship recorded suppression of material fact and we take a serious view of such omission. The order passed in the WPA 13425 of 2026, was not placed before Her Lordship. The fact that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector was not brought to the notice of Her Lordship. 3 16. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal for transmission to the funds of Juvenile Justice Committee, High Court. The learned civil Judge shall ensure payment of the cost before the civil suit is taken up for further hearing. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4