Md. Majibul Islam and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Md. Majibul Islam and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal and the connected applications (CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025) were disposed of with no order on either tranche of land, the parties being left to their remedies before the civil Court for the tranche covered by Title Suit No. 76 of 2007.

Issue for consideration

Whether any order should be passed in the appeal regarding the tranche of land that is the subject matter of civil suit Title Suit No. 76 of 2007, whose restoration application remains pending. +1 more

Court's answer

No order is passed with respect to the land comprising Title Suit No. 76 of 2007; the private parties are at liberty to avail of their remedies before the civil Court in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

No further order need be passed in respect of the other tranche of land beyond that involved in T.S. No. 76 of 2007, in view of the private respondents' submission that they claim no right, title or interest therein and the State's submission that the boundary wall would be allowed to be erected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMA/878/2025, Md. Majibul Islam and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., decided 13.08.2025 (Debangsu Basak, J. and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.). Appeal against the order dated April 11, 2025 of the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition WPA 6650 of 2025. Two tranches of plots of land were involved. As to the tranche forming the subject matter of civil suit Title Suit No. 76 of 2007 (dismissed for non-appearance of the parties, restoration application pending), the Court passed no order and left the private parties to their remedies before the civil Court. As to the other tranche, where the private respondents had allegedly encroached and demolished a boundary wall, the private respondents disclaimed any right, title or interest, the State submitted the boundary wall would be allowed to be erected, and the Court held no further order was needed. The appeal and connected applications CAN/1/2025 and CAN/2/2025 were disposed of accordingly.

Dd 20 13.08.2025

FMA/878/2025 MD. MAJIBUL ISLAM AND ORS VS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2025, CAN/2/2025

Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Syed Shofi Ahmed, Mr. Syed Neaz Ahmed. Ms. Nargis Parveen, Advocates

… … For the Appellants

Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, AGP Mr. SM Samim Ulla, Advocates … …For the State

Mr. Sovan Dasgupta, Ms. Swagata Dasgupta, Advocates … ..For the private respondents

Appeal is directed against an order dated April 11, 2025 passed WPA 6650 of 2025.

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after noticing that, there was a civil suit between the private parties being Title Suit No. 76 of 2007.

In course of hearing of the appeal, our attention was drawn to the fact that, Title Suit No. 76 of 2007 was dismissed for non-appearance of the parties and an application for restoration is pending which is yet to be disposed of.

During the pendency of the appeal, again, our attention was drawn to the fact that, the private respondents illegally encroached upon land belonging to the appellants in respect of a different

2

plot of land. A boundary wall in respect of such plot of land was demolished.

Therefore, in the present appeal, two tranches of plots of land are involved. Since the land comprising of Title Suit No. 76 of 2007 is a subject matter of a civil suit, we pass no order with regard thereto. Private parties are at liberty to avail of their remedies before the civil Court in accordance with law.

So far as the other tranche which is beyond the tranche involved in T.S. No. 76 of 2007, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that his clients are not claiming any right, title or interests in respect thereof.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that boundary wall as allowed to be erected.

In such circumstances, no further order need be passed so far as the other tranche of land is concerned.

In view of the discussions above, FMA/878/2025 along with the connected applications are disposed of accordingly.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)