Dismissed

Sambhu Karmakar @ Sambhunath Karmakar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Sept 2026WPA/23707/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to the police to enable his use of a piece of land for ingress and egress. The court held that the dispute over the right to use the land is civil in nature and that the police are not the appropriate authority to adjudicate such rights. The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the appropriate civil forum.

What did the court decide?

None

Sambhu Karmakar @ Sambhunath Karmakar Vs State of West… — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

14. 22.09.2026 (D/L) CT. NO. 05 ( ARPAN-A.R.CT. )

¶2

In The High Court at Calcutta

¶3

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction

¶4

(Appellate Side)

¶5

W.P.A. 23707 OF 2026

¶6

SAMBHU KARMAKAR @ SAMBHUNATH KARMAKAR VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

¶7

……………

¶8

Mr. Subhadip Pramanik, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Dhar, Adv.

¶9

…For Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Sovan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Bikash Kumar Sriwastav, Adv.

¶11

…For State

¶12

Mr. Syed Nasirul Hossain, Adv. Mr. Md. Jalaluddin, Adv. Mr. Debasish Maji, Adv.

¶13

…For Private Respondent

¶14

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

¶15

By presenting this writ petition petitioner has prayed for direction upon the concerned police authority to take steps which would facilitate petitioner to use a particular piece of land for his ingress and egress.

¶16

State respondents and private respondent are represented by learned advocates.

¶17

It is submitted on behalf of State respondents that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature requiring petitioner to approach appropriate forum.

¶18

Having considered the case made out in this writ petition, it appears that petitioner has prayed for direction upon concerned police authority which would preserve his right to use a piece of land for his ingress and egress. Police authority is not the appropriate authority to decide whether petitioner has right over the said piece of land in question or not.

¶19

[2]

¶20

If petitioner finds that he has right over the land in question and such right is being denied by private respondent, in that event, petitioner needs to approach appropriate forum in pursuit of remedy.

¶21

In aforesaid conspectus present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed.

¶22

However, this order shall not preclude petitioner to take steps, in accordance with law.

¶23

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶24

(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Sambhu Karmakar @ Sambhunath Karmakar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhu Karmakar @ Sambhunath Karmakar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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