Dismissed¶¶32

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Jul 2025WPA/10704/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deity land dispute; Plot No. 1262, Mouza Harasankar Garkilla; RS & ROR and LR & ROR entries; ‘debosthan’ versus ‘khas’ land; khatian no. 1; rayati land; interdepartmental transfer to PHE / Public Health Department; submersible pump installed, works from February 2024, scheme commissioned; Executive Engineer, Tamluk Division report; representation dated 23.04.2025; binding effect of Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 decree on non-party respondents; co-ordinate Bench WPA 24842 of 2024, judgment and order dated 26.03.2025; sebaits; acquisition and compensation; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 has no binding effect upon the respondents/authorities, since they were admittedly not parties to that appeal. ¶¶26

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/authorities, particularly respondent no. 7, ought to be directed to consider the writ petitioners' representation dated 23.04.2025. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

In view of the discussions, this Court finds no reason to issue any writ against the respondents/authorities for considering the representation dated 23.04.2025.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

The judgment in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 has no binding effect upon the respondents/authorities, since they were admittedly not parties to that appeal.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

Apart from the copy of the RS & ROR, the writ petitioner no. 1 deity, through its sebaits, failed to produce any document of title over plot no. 1262.ratio¶¶28
Sufficient materials placed by the respondents/authorities establish that plot no. 1262 is a ‘khas’ land recorded in khatian no. 1, transferred by interdepartmental transfer to the Public Health Department, on which the submersible pump has already been installed and commissioned.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by the deity Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur (through sebaits) and others seeking a direction to respondent no. 7/authority to consider their representation dated 23.04.2025 regarding installation of a submersible pump on Plot No. 1262, Mouza Harasankar Garkilla — recorded as ‘debosthan’ in the RS & ROR — allegedly effected without acquisition or compensation. The State's report showed the plot as ‘khas’ land in khatian no. 1, transferred to the PHE authority by interdepartmental transfer, with pipeline and pump-house works begun in February 2024 and the scheme commissioned. The Court held that the decree in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 (which affirmed the deity's title) had no binding effect on the respondents, who were not parties to it; that apart from the RS & ROR the petitioners produced no document of title; and, noting a co-ordinate Bench dismissal of a similar petition by the same deity in WPA 24842 of 2024 (order dated 26.03.2025), declined to issue any writ and dismissed the petition. No order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

¶1

S/L 3 02.07.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav

¶2

WPA 10704 of 2025

¶3

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Ms. Malyasree Maity Mr. Nishant Kumar Mr. Fardeen Hossain

¶5

… for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Ashim Kr. Ganguly Mr. Bellal Shaikh

¶7

… for the State.

¶8

Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record for the writ petitioners to correct the cause title in respect of the respondent nos. 5 and 7 preferably in course of this day in Court.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and its functionaries has submitted a copy of the report as prepared by the Executive Engineer, Tamluk Division, PHE Department. The same is taken on record.

¶10

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 7 to consider the representation of the writ petitioners as submitted on 23.04.2025.

¶11

In course of hearing, Ms. Maity, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page No. 39 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the RS &

¶12

¶13

ROR. It is submitted that from the copy of the said RS & ROR, it would reveal that plot no. 1262 is recorded as ‘debosthan’. It is further submitted that from Page No. 40 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the LR & ROR, it would reveal that in respect of self-same plot no. 1262 in Mouza – Harasankar Garkilla there were no endorsement regarding khatian number and ‘Shrenee’ (classification).

¶14

It is submitted that taking advantage of such defective LR & ROR, the respondents/authorities, more specifically, the respondent no. 7/authority installed a submersible pump in the said plot of land which is and was in possession of the respondent no. 1 deity who are represented before this Court by the respondent nos. 2 to 7 being the ‘sebaits’ of the said deity. It is submitted that since the writ petitioner no. 1 deity’s land has been utilized by the respondent no. 7/authority without initiating any process of acquisition and without disbursing any adequate compensation, the writ petitioners approached the respondents/authorities with a representation dated 23.04.2025 but no decision has been taken by the respondents/authorities upon such representation causing serious prejudice to the right, title and interest of the writ petitioners in respect of the said plot of land being Plot No. 1262.

¶15

It is further submitted that from the judgment and decree as passed in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 by the learned Additional Court of Subordinate Judge,

¶16

¶17

Medinipur, it would reveal that the said appellate court affirmed the right, title and interest of the respondent no. 1 deity in connection with C.S./R.S. Plot No. 1262 in the aforementioned Mouza.

Per contra, Mr. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State draws attention of this Court to the copy of the report as filed today. It is submitted that from Page No. 2 of the report, it would reveal that Plot No. 1262 is not at all a rayati land and on the contrary, the same is recorded in khatian no. 1 with a classification ‘debosthan’. It is thus submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the writ petitioner no. 1 deity through its sebaits is in possession of the said plot of land bearing plot number 1262.

¶22

It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent/State and its functionaries that by way of interdepartmental transfer, the said plot of land was transferred to the PHE authority and after completion of demarcation work by the respondent no. 8/authority, the installation of pipeline and construction of pump house was started from February, 2024 and the said Scheme was commissioned at present.

¶23

On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that in order to substantiate his right, title and interest over the aforementioned plot no. 1262, the

¶24

¶25

writ petitioners have basically relied upon a judgment of an appellate court as passed in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955. Admittedly, in the said title appeal, the respondents/authorities were not parties.

¶26

In view of such, this Court has got no hesitation to hold that the judgment as passed in Title Appeal No. 251 of 1955 has got no binding effect upon the respondents/authorities. This Court has also perused the judgment and order dated 26.03.2025 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WPA 24842 of 2024 whereby and whereunder in a writ petition as filed by the present writ petitioner no. 1, a similar point was raised, however, the said co-ordinate Bench dismissed the said writ petition holding that the petitioner has not been able to show any document relating to ownership of the subject plot of land.

¶27

¶28

Keeping in mind the aforementioned factual scenario, if I again look to the factual aspects of this case, it reveals to this Court that apart from the copy of RS & ROR, the writ petitioner no. 1 deity through its ‘sebaits’ has failed to produce any document of title over plot no. 1262. On the contrary, sufficient materials have been placed on behalf of the respondents/authorities that the said plot is a ‘khas’ land and is recorded in khatian no. 1 and by way of interdepartmental transfer, the said plot of land was transferred to the Public Health Department and soon thereafter, the respondent no. 7/authority had initiated installation of

¶29

¶30

submersible pump which has already been commissioned.

¶31

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no reason to issue any type of writ against the respondents/authorities for considering the representation dated 23.04.2025.

¶32

In considered view of this Court the instant writ petition being WPA 10704 of 2025 is devoid of any merit and is thus dismissed.

¶33

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

¶34

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶35

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Ganguly and Ors. Vs Aparna Moulik Chairman of the Board of Councillor of Baranagar Municipality and Ors.

Lakshmi Rani Dinda and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Trilochan Das Vs Dhaval Jain IAS

The Deputy Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare and Tribal Development Directorate and Anr. Vs Subhasish Das and Ors.

Pappu Das Vs the Principal Secretary Govt. of West Begnal and Anr.

Subhasish Das and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.