Dismissed¶17

Nuruddin Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC27 Jul 2026WPA(P)/81/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kharampur Hat; village market (hat); Public Interest Litigation; writ of mandamus refused; vested land 12 decimals out of 1.78 acres; patta to Akramul Hoque and Shakila Molla; L.R. Record of Rights remarks column does not confer title or possession; raiyat under Sections 2(10) and 4(1), West Bengal Land Reforms Act; P.S. Hasnabad; North 24 Parganas; livelihood inconvenience; writ petition dismissed, no costs. Useful for propositions that mandamus will not lie in respect of private land and that RoR remarks-column entries do not determine title.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶17

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to restore the functioning of Kharampur Hat situated at Mouza-Kharampur, J.L. No. 21, Dag No. 966, P.S. Hasnabad, along with the adjoining Government land measuring 12 decimals. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

Of the total 1.78 acres, only 12 decimals vested in the State; a patta was subsequently granted even in respect of those 12 decimals in favour of Akramul Hoque and Shakila Molla, and the remaining land belongs to persons recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights as raiyats under Sections 2(10) and 4(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Entries recorded in the remarks column of the L.R. Record of Rights cannot determine the right to possession or title in respect of the said land.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since the documents placed on record indicate that the land belongs to private owners having subsisting private rights therein, the writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued in respect of such land.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation under writ jurisdiction praying for restoration of the functioning of Kharampur Hat (village market) at Mouza-Kharampur, J.L. No. 21, Dag No. 966, P.S. Hasnabad, District North 24 Parganas, along with adjoining Government land measuring 12 decimals. HELD, dismissing the petition: (i) of the total 1.78 acres, only 12 decimals had vested in the State, and a patta was subsequently granted even in respect of those 12 decimals in favour of Akramul Hoque and Shakila Molla, the remaining portion belonging to private owners; (ii) the persons recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights are raiyats within the meaning of Sections 2(10) and 4(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, and entries in the remarks column of the Record of Rights cannot determine the right to possession or title; and (iii) as the land belongs to private owners with subsisting private rights, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in respect of such land. No order as to costs.

¶1

27.07.2026 Item No.19 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra

¶2

WPA (P) 81 of 2026

¶3

Nuruddin Molla

¶4

- Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶5

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Omar Faruk Gaji, Ms. Bidisha Das ….for the petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld.AAG, Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP, Mr. Madhu Jana, JGA, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar, Mr. Ranajay Chatterjee, Mr. Tarun Kr. Poddar, Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh, Ms. Puja Sonkar …..for the State Ms. Iqra Rahaman …..for the respondent no.11

¶6

Fundamentally, the present writ petition, in the form of a Public Interest Litigation, has been preferred praying for a direction upon the concerned respondents to restore the functioning of Kharampur Hat situated at Mouza-Kharampur, J.L. No. 21, Dag No. 966, along with the adjoining Government land measuring 12 decimals, under Police Station Hasnabad, District North 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as "the said land").

¶7

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that a hat (village market) had been functioning on the said land for a substantial period of time. However, it has been forced to cease operations. He submits that due to such stoppage of the functioning of the said hat , the people residing in the surrounding locality have been facing insurmountable inconvenience, and the same has also adversely

¶8

¶9

affected the lives and livelihoods of the people of the locality. Espousing their cause, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, a public-spirited person.

¶10

Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, produces a report and submits that out of 1.78 acres of land, only 12 decimals had vested in the State. However, subsequently, a patta was granted in respect of the said land in favour of one Akramul Hoque and one Shakila Molla, and the remaining portion of the land is private land. Let the report, as produced, be kept on record.

¶11

In reply, Mr. Chatterjee contends that the mere recording of a person's name in the Record of Rights does not create or confer any title in favour of such person. Drawing our attention to the remarks column of the L.R. Record of Rights pertaining to the said land, he submits that it is evident therefrom that a hat was operating on the said land.

¶12

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record including the affidavits exchanged by the parties.

¶13

As noted previously, from the L.R. Record of Rights, the information slip annexed at page 30 of the writ petition, the other documents appended thereto, as well as the report, it appears that the total area of the land is 1.78 acres, out of which 12 decimals vested in the State. A patta was granted in respect of the said 12 decimals of land in favour of one Akramul Hoque and one Shakila Molla, while the remaining portion of the land belongs to the persons whose names are recorded in the L.R. Record of Rights. In the L.R. Record of Rights, such persons have been described as a raiyat within the meaning of Sections

¶14

¶15

2(10) and 4(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Thus, the entries recorded in the remarks column cannot determine the right to possession or title in respect of the said land.

¶16

Therefore, as the documents placed on record by the parties indicate that the land belongs to private owners who have subsisting private rights therein, a writ of mandamus, as prayed for in the writ petition, cannot be issued in respect of such land.

¶17

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

¶20

be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

¶21

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Nuruddin Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuruddin Molla 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Ghosh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Safiya Hasan, Repd. by Her Father Sk. Tabrikul Islam Vs Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Secretary and Anr.

Union of India Vs Sandip Maity @ Maiti

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Administration and Airport Vs Ajay Kumar Gond and Ors.

Sujay Bandyopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prasanta Kanti Bose Vs Pranotosh Maity, the District Inspector of Schools, Se, N24 Pgs.