Dismissed¶27

Sumitra Halder v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Jul 2026WPA/17101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, WPA 17101 of 2026 (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.), decided 29.07.2026. Writ petition by Smt. Sumitra Halder against the State of West Bengal & Ors. seeking a police direction to permit stay in premises claimed by adverse possession; opposed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. Court held police authority not competent to decide the civil right and relegated the petitioner to the civil Court; petition dismissed. Keywords: adverse possession, police direction/protection, civil dispute, maintainability of writ, remedy before civil court, writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide the petitioner's right over the premises in question. ¶26

Sumitra Halder Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

29.07.2026

¶2

Item no.DL 11 Court No. 05

¶3

Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)

¶4

In the High Court at Calcutta

¶5

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶6

Case No.

¶7

WPA 17101 of 2026

¶8

In the matter of :

¶9

SMT. SUMITRA HALDER

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

VS.

¶12

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

For the Petitioner :

¶15

Mr. Sandip Ghosh Mr. Partha Sarkar Mr. Partha Chakraborty Ms. Riya Ballav For the Private Respondents : Mr. Ankit Banerjee Ms. Seuli Banerjee

¶16

For the State :

¶17

For the Private Respondents :

… Advocates

… Advocates

… Advocates

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

¶22

2. A case is made out thereby seeking direction upon the concerned police authorities which would permit the petitioner to stay at the premises in question where petitioner stayed till 2015. It is submitted that petitioner has acquired right in connection with the premises in question by adverse possession.

¶23

3. Private respondents and State respondents are represented by learned advocates and on their

¶24

Page 2

¶25

behalf present writ petition is opposed on the count that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature.

¶26

4. From the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears that petitioner prays for a direction upon the concerned police authorities for taking necessary steps which would facilitate the petitioner to stay at the premises in question. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide right of the petitioner over the said premises where he stayed up to 2015. If petitioner’s right to stay at the residence is denied, in that event petitioner needs to approach civil Court in pursuit of remedy.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )

Sumitra Halder v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Halder 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jogindar Yadav Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tapas Kumar Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sahadeb Maity Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Mofijul Islam Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pijush Kanti Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.