The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition is limited, and the court may not entertain reliefs that fall outside its jurisdiction.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J:

1. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned single judge of this court on 29th November 2017 in a writ petition being W.P. No. 27841 (W) of 2017 filed by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1. Taking the queue from the observations made by the learned single judge of this court in an order dated 25th January 2017 passed in a writ petition being W.P.No. 1351 (W) of 2017 (Sarenga Sashan Kalibari Rathtala Committee & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), the writ petitioner/respondent herein applied before the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer for demarcation of the land in question so that similar disturbance as to the user and enjoyment of the said land does not crop up in future. Since the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer has not taken any step to demarcate the land in question in pursuance of the application submitted by the writ petitioner/respondent, the writ petitioner/respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking issuance of direction upon the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to demarcate the land in question. Other incidental reliefs are also claimed in the said suit. The learned single judge by the impugned order passed on 29th November 2017 directed the respondent no. 4, namely, the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to demarcate the plots of land in question and to submit a report to the writ court on the next date of hearing. The police authority was also directed to render adequate and proper assistance to the respondent no. 4, namely, the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer in the work of demarcation of the land in question. The writ petition is made returnable on 12th December 2017 for further consideration.

2. The legality and/or correctness of the said order is challenged by the private respondents/appellants herein in this mandamus appeal.

3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that there were rival claims of title over 60 decimals of land lying in R.S. Plot No. 5515 at Mouza-Sarenga, District- Howrah between two groups of persons belonging to different communities. He submits that his client filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 198 of 1983 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court at Howrah in the representative capacity after taking leave of the court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said suit was ultimately decreed ex parte on 15th September 1984 declaring that the members of the Hindu community of Village-Sarenga have exclusive right of user of the suit land measuring about .60 acres of land comprising in Dag No. 5515 appertaining to R.S. Khanda Khatian Nos. 2597, 2599, 2601, 2603 and 2605 for religious purposes and for observance of religious ceremonies and festivals and the defendants have no right to come upon the suit land for disturbing and/or interfering with the exclusive right of the Hindu public of the village – Sarenga. It was further declared therein that the appellants herein are entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from coming upon the suit land and disturbing and/or interfering in any manner with the exclusive right of the Hindus of village-Sarenga to use the suit land for Hindu religious purposes and observing any of their religious ceremonies and the Mohamedans are hereby restrained from holding their religious rite and ceremonies in the suit land and also from disturbing or interfering the Hindus from observing their any sort of religious performance in the suit land by any manner whatsoever. The said decree attained its finality as none has challenged the said decree in appeal.

4. He further pointed out that subsequently a suit was filed by one Altab @ Altab Hossain Molla against Guiram Buxi & Ors. for a declaration that the decree which was passed in Title Suit No. 198 of 1983 was not binding upon them. The said suit stood abated on the deat