Dismissed

Gautam Maity v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC17 Mar 2021WPA/8289/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging police inaction regarding a civil trespass dispute, the High Court refused to direct police assistance. The Court clarified that police cannot decide on titles or_evict_ occupants without a competent court order and disposed of the petition by granting liberty to approach the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioners liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate regarding the pending criminal case.

Gautam Maity Vs State of West Bengal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

17.03.2021 Ct. No.23 pg.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WPA 8289 of 2020

¶5

Gautam Maity & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Debasish Das

¶7

… For the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Ranjit Rajak … For the State

¶9

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

¶10

record.

¶11

The petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP No.14221 (W) of 2018, which was disposed of by an order dated 18^th March, 2019, directing the police authorities to complete the investigation in a fair and impartial manner and to submit a report as expeditiously as possible. Prior to such order, it appears that the police authorities had informed the Magistrate on 13^th August, 2018 about petitioners’ complaint under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”). The police authorities subsequent to such order had issued a notice on 1^st June, 2019 and a land demarcation exercise in the presence of the officials of the Block Land and Land Reforms Department was also conducted on 4^th June, 2019.

¶12

The petitioners, in the instant writ petition, allege police inaction on the ground that the petitioners had, by

¶13

¶14

a letter dated 11^th March, 2020, sent through post to the Officer-in-Charge, Sabang Police Station, requested the said Officer-in-Charge to facilitate free ingress and egress from the petitioners’ property and to start criminal case as per the law against the respondents no.7 to 10 (private respondents).

¶15

Advocate for the State has produced an instruction received by him from the Officer-in-Charge, Sabang Police Station, a copy whereof is also given to the advocate for the petitioners. The said instruction/report is taken on record. It appears from the said report that the police authorities have submitted NCR no.750/18 dated 13^th August, 2018 under Sections 506/34 of IPC against the private respondents. The police authorities have also indicated that the petitioners should make necessary arrangement to take possession of the land occupied by the private respondents and during execution, all sorts of police assistance will be provided by Sabang Police Station to maintain law and order.

¶16

The recovery of possession by the petitioners is dependent on an order of a competent court. The police authorities cannot decide as to the title and give possession of a property or remove someone therefrom which is said to have been encroached or trespassed into as in the instant case as alleged by the private respondents. The police authorities have only expressed their view to give all assistance during execution which

¶17

¶18

obviously means execution of an order of a competent court.

¶19

So far as the investigation part is concerned, the police authorities have already filed their report on 13^th August, 2018 on basis whereof a criminal case has been registered. Any criminal case to be proceeded with pursuant to a report being filed before the learned Magistrate is dependent on the said court. The petitioners, therefor, cannot allege police inaction in the matter as of now.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of granting the petitioners liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate wherein the case is pending pursuant to the report filed by the police on 13^th August, 2018 as against the private respondents under Section 506/34 of the IPC.

¶21

Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶22

Since I have not called for any affidavits, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted.

¶23

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶24

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

Gautam Maity v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Maity v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjula Nagpal & Ors. Vs Aba Builders Limited & Ors.

Ruchi Singh Deo Alias Ishvari Raje Singh Deo & Ors. Vs Maheshwari Debi @ Singh

Saregama India Ltd. Vs Mitesh Mehta

Prof Pankaj Kumar Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Prof Seimanta Sinha Roy Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Prof. (Dr.) Pankaj Kr Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.