Dismissed¶22

Sk. Munnaf Ali v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC27 Jul 2026WPA/15684/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court; W.P.A. 15684 of 2026 (decided 27.07.2026); bargadar rights; mandamus to police for protection of claimed bargadar tenancy refused during pendency of title suit; West Bengal Land Reforms Act referenced; coordinate Bench order WPA 26883 of 2006 (dated 26.06.2008) distinguished; writ dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; single Bench of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ¶22

Sk. Munnaf Ali Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether, during the pendency of the petitioner's suit asserting his right as bargadar, a mandamus should be issued to the concerned police authorities to take steps preserving that right. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

During the pendency of the suit claiming the petitioner's right as bargadar, no mandamus is warranted directing the concerned police authorities to take steps preserving that right.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The coordinate Bench order dated 26th June, 2008 (WPA 26883 of 2006) does not aid the petitioner: it proceeded on the premise that the competent authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act had recorded the applicants as bargadars, whereas in the present case the petitioner's bargadar status is not demonstrated and his suit claiming such right is still pending.

¶21

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not consider, in the present proceeding, whether the petitioner is in fact a bargadar in respect of the agricultural land in question; that point is left open.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional writ petition (W.P.A. No. 15684 of 2026, High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side) by Sk. Munnaf Ali seeking directions to police authorities to protect his claimed right as bargadar in agricultural land, dismissed by Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. (decision date 27.07.2026). Held: with a suit asserting the petitioner's bargadar right still pending, no mandamus is warranted directing police authorities to preserve that right; the Court expressly refrained from deciding whether the petitioner is in fact a bargadar. An order of a coordinate Bench dated 26th June, 2008 in WPA 26883 of 2006, relied upon by the petitioner, was distinguished: it had proceeded on the premise that the competent authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act had recorded the applicants as bargadars, which is not demonstrated in the present case where the claim rests on a pending suit. The petitioner remains free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶1

08 27.07.2026 Ranajit Ct.05 (AR.CT)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

¶3

W.P.A. NO 15684 OF 2026

¶4

Sk. Munnaf Ali

¶5

-vs-

¶6

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Goutam Dinda, Mr. Sandip Ray

¶8

….for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Ipsita Ghosh

¶10

….for the respondent nos.4 & 5.

¶11

Mr. Suryaneel Das, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Mr. Dipjyoti Chakraborty

¶12

….for the State.

¶13

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition seeking direction upon the concerned police authorities to take steps which would protect right of the petitioner as bargadar in respect of agricultural land in question.

¶15

State respondents and respondent nos.4 & 5 are represented by learned advocates.

¶16

On hearing learned advocates representing the parties, it appears that a suit is pending which was instituted by the petitioner for asserting his right as bargadar in connection with agricultural land in question.

¶17

At this stage, during pendency of the suit claiming right of the petitioner as bargadar no mandamus is warranted thereby directing the concerned police

¶18

¶19

authorities to take steps which would preserve right of the petitioner as bargadar.

¶20

It is made clear that Court is not considering in the present proceeding if petitioner is bargadar or not in respect of agricultural land in question.

¶21

On behalf of the petitioner an order of a coordinate Bench dated 26^th June, 2008 is relied upon passed on a writ petition being WPA 26883 of 2006. However, on perusal of the said order dated 26^th June, 2008, it appears that the coordinate Bench proceeded on the premise that competent authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, recorded names of the petitioners as bargadars in respect of agricultural land in question. But in the present case, it is not demonstrated before this Court that the petitioner is bargadar in respect of land in question and suit is pending claiming petitioner’s right as bargadar. Therefore, order of the coordinate Bench dated 26^th June, 2008 does not come in aid of the petitioner.

¶22

Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed.

¶23

However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶25

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)

Sk. Munnaf Ali v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Munnaf Ali v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Adhikary Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bapi Shaikh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rupali Mallick @ Samir Mallick Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satyabrata Singha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rama Kant Jaiswal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Soiada Bibi Alias Sayeda Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.