Dismissed¶17

Dipak Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W B & Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Mar 2026WPA/2716/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dipak Ghosh v. State of West Bengal; WPA 2716 of 2012; CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 12635 of 2019); restoration after dismissal for default; recall of order dated 9th December, 2019; alleged encroachment by college authorities; property neither acquired nor requisitioned; adjudication of title and possession of immovable property; purely civil dispute cannot be decided in writ petition; maintainability of writ petition; liberty to approach appropriate forum; merits not entered into; no order as to costs; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; decision dated 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of WPA 2716 of 2012 to its original file and number (recall of the order dated 9th December, 2019); the writ petition thereafter dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum; no order as to costs. ¶17

Dipak Ghosh & Ors. Vs State of W B & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the writ petition stood dismissed for default, warranting recall of the order dated 9th December, 2019 and restoration of the writ petition (CAN 3 of 2019). +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the writ petition stood dismissed for default; accordingly the order dated 9th December, 2019 stands recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

A dispute requiring adjudication on title and possession of an immovable property is purely civil in nature and cannot be decided in a writ petition; the Court is therefore not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners.

¶14

Key takeaways

The dismissal shall not prevent the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law.obiter¶15
The Court has not entered into the merits of the claims and counter-claims of the respective parties.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 2716 of 2012, Dipak Ghosh & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), decided 11.03.2026 by Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. (single Judge): (i) Restoration application CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 12635 of 2019) disposed of favourably - the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the writ petition stood dismissed for default; the order dated 9th December, 2019 was recalled and the writ petition restored to its original file and number. (ii) The petition alleged illegal encroachment by college authorities on the petitioners' property, with neither acquisition nor requisition by the State and no purchase documents annexed by the college. The Court held that the dispute requires adjudication on title and possession of an immovable property, is purely civil in nature, and cannot be decided in a writ petition; no relief was granted. The Court expressly did not enter into the merits of the claims and counter-claims, and the petitioners remain free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. WPA 2716 of 2012 dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

A 530 11.03.2026 Court No.19 BP

¶2

WPA 2716 of 2012 With CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 12635 of 2019)

¶3

Dipak Ghosh & Ors. -versus-

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aloke Chatterjee Mr. Arghya Mullick Mr. Raju Bhattacharya ..for the petitioners

¶6

Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal ..for the State

¶7

Re: CAN 3 of 2019

¶8

After hearing Mr. Arghya Mullick, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned advocate appearing for the State this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the writ petition stood dismissed for default. Accordingly the order dated 9^th December, 2019 stands recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original file and number.

¶9

The application being CAN 3 of 2019 stands disposed of.

¶10

WPA 2716 of 2012

¶11

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the college authorities have illegally encroached upon the property of the petitioners. He further submits that in the affidavit in opposition though the college authorities have taken a stand that they have purchased the property from the brother of Bhawani Charan Ghosh but no document in support thereof has been annexed to the affidavit

¶12

¶13

in opposition. He further submits that the property of the petitioners has neither been acquired nor requisitioned by the State authorities.

¶14

After going through the averments made in the application and after hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties this Court finds that the petitioners have alleged illegal encroachment upon the property of the petitioners by the college authorities. The dispute involved in this writ petition requires adjudication on title and possession of the respective parties pertaining to an immovable property. Such a dispute being purely civil in nature cannot be decided in a writ petition. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners.

¶15

It is, however, made clear that this order shall not prevent the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶16

It is however made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claims and counter-claims of the respective parties and the parties will be at liberty to raise all points before the appropriate forum, if an approval to such forum is made.

¶17

Accordingly, WPA 2716 of 2012 stands dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

¶19

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Dipak Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W B & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Ghosh & Ors. v. State of W B & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goutam Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Malay Manna Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sadhan Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sahida Bibi Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Nizamuddin Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Nur Ali Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.