Disposed¶18

Murtaza Ali v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2026WPA/635/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 635 of 2026, Murtaza Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. (decided 5 Feb 2026, Suvra Ghosh, J.): police protection writ; obstruction to construction of plot; compliance with private respondents' undertaking recorded in FMA 99 of 2023; directions to O.C., Nalhati Police Station (Birbhum); strict vigil, peace and tranquility, assistance/protection on request; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Officer in charge, Nalhati Police Station (4th respondent) to ensure the private respondents comply with their undertaking, keep strict vigil, maintain peace and tranquility, and render assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought; no order as to costs. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether, given the Division Bench's recording of the petitioner's possession and the private respondents' stated non-opposition, protective directions should issue to the police against the private respondents' continued obstruction of the petitioner's construction on the plot.

¶15

Court's answer

The Officer in charge, Nalhati Police Station (4th respondent) is directed to ensure that the private respondents comply with the submission/undertaking recorded before the Hon'ble Division Bench that they do not oppose the petitioner's construction in the plot.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The police authority shall keep strict vigil in the area, ensure maintenance of peace and tranquility, and render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single Judge disposed of a writ petition seeking protection against obstruction to construction. The petitioner, claiming to be the recorded owner of the plot, alleged that private respondents continued to obstruct construction despite a Division Bench order in FMA 99 of 2023 (dated 24 July 2024) recording his possession and noting their submission of non-opposition. His earlier writ petition had been dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 13 April 2022. A complaint lay before the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum, but none before the local police. None appeared for the private respondents despite service. The Court directed the Officer in charge, Nalhati Police Station (4th respondent) to ensure compliance with the private respondents' undertaking, to keep strict vigil in the area, ensure peace and tranquility, and render assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought. No costs; allegations deemed not admitted as no affidavit was invited.

¶1

February 5, 2026 (17) ARDR

WPA 635 of 2026

Murtaza Ali

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶6

Adv. Indradeep Pal, Adv. Sougata Pal,

¶7

… for the petitioner.

¶8

Adv. M. Nazar Chowdhury,

¶9

…for the State.

¶10

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶11

None appears for the private respondents despite service.

¶12

The petitioner claims to be the recorded owner of the plot in question and alleges that the private respondents are restraining him from raising construction therein. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this regard earlier which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 13^th April, 2022. The said order was carried in appeal by the petitioner and by an order passed on 24^th July, 2024 in FMA 99 of 2023 an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court recorded the possession of the petitioner in respect of the plot and granted liberty to make necessary construction thereon in accordance with law. The order records that the private respondents have submitted that they are not opposing any construction to be made in the plot concerned by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such undertaking, the private respondents are

¶14

¶15

continuing to obstruct him from raising construction in the plot.

¶16

It appears that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum. However, no complaint has been lodged before the local police authority.

¶17

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has been held to be in possession of the plot in question and the private respondents have submitted before the Hon’ble Division Bench that they have no objection if the petitioner raises construction in the said plot, the Officer in charge, Nalhati Police Station, being the 4^th respondent herein, is directed to ensure that the said submission/undertaking is complied with by the private respondents. 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 as and when sought.

¶18

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

There shall however, be no order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Murtaza Ali v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murtaza Ali 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tilottama Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Manohar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sourav Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Khademul Islam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jubi Saha and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sudip Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.