Dismissed¶19

Anima Rout and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Feb 2026WPA/8488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anima Rout & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P.A. 8488 of 2025, decided 25.02.2026 by Kausik Chanda, J. Keywords: Article 226 Constitution; writ jurisdiction discretionary equitable; delay, acquiescence, absence of bona fides; construction completed before filing; unauthorised construction without sanctioned plan; Panchayat Authority; Zilla Parishad Purba Medinipur; Dag No. 839 Khatian No. 558 Mouza Dakshin Charaikhia; easementary rights ingress egress; civil dispute given public law colour; writ court not alternative forum; petition dismissed; liberty to approach appropriate forum; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. ¶19

Anima Rout and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No order as to costs; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked by the petitioners against the alleged unauthorised construction on land allegedly belonging to the Zilla Parishad, Purba Medinipur, given that they permitted the construction to continue and approached the Court only after completion of the building. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioners' conduct in consciously permitting the construction to continue and approaching the Court only after completion of the building attracts the settled principles of delay, acquiescence and absence of bona fides; the discretionary, equity-based writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to revive a right forfeited by the petitioner's own conduct.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, concerning alleged infringement of easementary rights; the petitioners cannot be permitted to give a public law colour to it at such a belated stage, and the writ court cannot be utilised as an alternative forum to secure indirectly what is not obtainable directly in a civil proceeding.

¶14

Key takeaways

The allegation regarding absence of a sanctioned plan is inextricably intertwined with the underlying civil dispute and was raised only to impart a semblance of a public law character to what is fundamentally a private conflict.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.A. 8488 of 2025) dismissed. Respondent no. 9 had constructed a building on land bearing Dag No. 839, Khatian No. 558, J.L. No. 134, Mouza Dakshin Charaikhia, allegedly belonging to the Zilla Parishad, Purba Medinipur, allegedly obstructing the petitioners' ingress and egress and used commercially without a sanctioned plan from the Panchayat Authority. The Court held that photographs and the annexed representation showed the petition was filed only after completion of the construction; the petitioners' conduct attracted delay, acquiescence and absence of bona fides, and the discretionary, equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot revive a right forfeited by the petitioner's own conduct. The dispute was held purely civil in nature (easementary rights); the sanctioned-plan allegation was treated as intertwined with the civil dispute and raised only to impart a public law colour; the writ court cannot be an alternative forum to secure indirectly what is not obtainable directly in a civil proceeding. Petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

¶1

25.02.2026 Ct. No. 15 Sl. No.939 skg

¶2

W.P.A. 8488 of 2025

¶3

Anima Rout & Anr. Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Ashim Kumar Routh, Mr. Subhayan Barrik, Ms. Manishka Dhar,

¶6

….for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. Bibekananda Tripathi, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi,

¶8

Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharya

¶9

…for the private respondent nos. 5 and 6

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 9 has constructed a building on land bearing Dag No. 839, Khatian No. 558, J.L. No. 134, Mouza Dakshin Charaikhia, allegedly belonging to the Zilla Parishad, Purba Medinipur. It is further alleged that the said construction has obstructed the ingress and egress of the petitioners and their family members. According to the petitioner, the building is being used for commercial purposes and has been constructed without obtaining any sanctioned plan from the Panchayat Authority.

¶11

The photographs produced before this Court, as well as the representation annexed to the writ

¶12

¶13

petition, clearly indicate that the writ petition has been filed after completion of the construction.

¶14

Having consciously permitted the construction to continue and having approached this Court only after completion of the building, the petitioner cannot now contend that the construction was undertaken without a sanctioned plan. Such conduct squarely attracts the well-settled principles of delay, acquiescence, and absence of bona fides. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, being discretionary and founded upon equitable considerations, cannot be invoked to revive a right that the petitioner has, by his own conduct, forfeited. Further, it appears that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, wherein the petitioners allege infringement of their easementary rights. The petitioners cannot be permitted to give a public law colour to a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, particularly at such a belated stage. The writ court cannot be utilised as an alternative forum to secure indirectly what is not obtainable directly in a civil proceeding.

¶15

The allegation regarding absence of a sanctioned plan is inextricably intertwined with the underlying civil dispute and appears to have been

¶16

¶17

raised only to impart a semblance of a public law character to what is fundamentally a private conflict.

¶18

Accordingly, W.P.A. 8488 of 2025 stands

¶19

dismissed.

¶20

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if so advised.

¶22

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Anima Rout and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anima Rout and Anr. v. the 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

Pronab Kumar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Keshab Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Safiuddin Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Swapan Kumar Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kunal Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajib Bose Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.