Disposed¶16

Rashbihari Mahato v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Feb 2026WPA/25515/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 25515 of 2025; Rashbihari Mahato v. State of West Bengal; police protection writ; disturbance of peaceful possession after dismissal of title suit T.S. no. 167 of 2006 (18-12-2017) and Title Appeal no. 18 of 2018 (16-09-2023); prosecution under Section 351(2) BNSS; directions for strict vigil, peace and tranquility, assistance/protection to owner-occupier; Suvra Ghosh, J.; decided 04-02-2026; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions to the police to keep strict vigil, ensure peace and tranquility, and render necessary assistance/protection enabling the petitioner to own and possess the property without disturbance; no order as to costs. ¶16

Rashbihari Mahato Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose title stands affirmed after the private respondents lost both the title suit and the appeal, is entitled to police vigilance and protection to hold and possess the property peacefully in the face of their continued disturbance.

¶12

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the footing that the right, title and interest of the private respondents have been denied by the learned trial Court and that the petitioner appears to be the owner and occupier of the property in question.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The police authority was directed to keep strict vigil in the area and ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility.

¶15

Key takeaways

The police were directed to render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner so that he is able to own and possess the property without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 25515 of 2025), Rashbihari Mahato v. The State of West Bengal & ors., decided February 4, 2026 by Suvra Ghosh, J. The private respondents' Title Suit (T.S. no. 167 of 2006) claiming right, title and interest in the property was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18th December, 2017, and their Title Appeal no. 18 of 2018 was dismissed on 16th September, 2023, affirming the trial Court's judgment. Despite losing before both Courts, the private respondents allegedly continued disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession, and his complaint in that regard was not taken care of. On the State's report that enquiry was held and prosecution submitted under Section 351(2) of the BNSS, and finding the petitioner to appear as owner and occupier, the Court directed the police authority to keep strict vigil in the area, ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility, and render necessary assistance/protection so that the petitioner could own and possess the property without disturbance from any corner whatsoever. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

February 4, 2026 (11) ARDR

¶2

WPA 25515 of 2025

¶3

Rashbihari Mahato

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶6

Adv. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv. Kuntal Ray, Adv. Priyanka Saha, Adv. Vijay Agarwal, Adv. Soumyajit Ghosh,

¶7

… for the petitioner.

¶8

…for the State.

¶9

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner and the report submitted are taken on record.

¶10

None appears for the private respondents despite service.

¶11

The private respondents filed a Title Suit against the petitioner and others being T.S. no. 167 of 2006 claiming right, title and interest in respect of the property in question which was dismissed by the learned trial Court by a judgment delivered on 18^th December, 2017. The judgment was carried in appeal by the private respondents and by a judgment delivered on 16^th September, 2023 in Title Appeal no. 18 of 2018, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite having lost before both the Courts, the private respondents are continuously disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the property.

¶13

¶14

Complaint lodged by the petitioner in this regard has not been taken care of.

¶15

It appears from the report submitted by the State that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner enquiry was held and prosecution submitted under Section 351(2) of the BNSS. Since the right, title and interest of the private respondents have been denied by the learned trial Court and the petitioner appears to be the owner and occupier of the property in question, the police authority shall keep strict vigil in the area and ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility. The police shall render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner so that he is able to own and possess the property without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever.

¶16

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶17

of.

¶18

There shall however, be no order as to costs.

¶19

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

¶20

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶21

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Rashbihari Mahato v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashbihari Mahato v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithu Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Eastern Paper Mills Limited and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Vandana D Raval Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Multiversity and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sahanaj Parvin Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Xxx Xxx Xxx Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.