Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
Mohan Ghara & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 20223 of 2024
Decided On : 26-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajit De, Mr. Subhajit De
For the Respondent: Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Subhasis Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhattacharyya
A civil court decree regarding property rights prevails; state authorities cannot construct roads on private land without requisition proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Relevant Laws - Civil Procedure Code, Sections relating to injunctions; Land Acquisition Act - Petitioners' claim for injunction regarding land ownership and unauthorized road construction.
(B) Legal Principle - A decree by a civil court regarding property rights is binding; without requisitioning or acquisition, no unauthorized use of land is permissible.
(C)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners own plots within Mouza Mahatpur; a road was constructed on their land without notice post a civil decree for removal.
(D)
Findings of Court:
The civil court's decree for mandatory injunction is upheld, directing respondents to remove the unauthorized road. (E)
Issues: Whether the respondents can dispute property ownership following a civil decree on mandatory injunction. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that state authorities bound by a civil decree cannot unilaterally disregard established property rights. (G)
Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of favorably towards the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership dispute and previous court rulings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. finality of civil court decree on land ownership. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. constructed road must comply with legal demarcation. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. legality of road construction without requisition. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court directions for demarcation and potential removal. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record.
2. In spite of service, the private respondents are not represented.
3. Leave is granted to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners to add the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur as a party-respondent in this writ petition.
4. The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot nos. 2058 and 2125 within Mouza Mahatpur under Police Station – Panskura in the district of Purba Medinipur. The petitioners filed a suit being Title Suit No. 157 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Tamluk, for declaration, permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for mandatory injunction as the aforesaid plots were claimed to have been utilized for the purpose of construction of a road. The suit was dismissed on contest by a judgment and decree dated April 29, 2006.
5. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the petitioners have preferred a Title Appeal being no. 58 of 2006 and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court at Tamluk by a judgment and decree dated September 30, 2013 allowed the title appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 157 of 1996. The appellate court passed a decree for mandatory injunction directing removal of the pathway which was already constructed on the aforesaid plots of land within the time limit indicated in the said decree.
6. Petitioners alleges that the Block Development Officer, Panskura – I submitted a proposal for construction of the road over the decreetal property and to take forcible possession of the property by constructing a road. Petitioners further alleges that without serving a notice upon the petitioners and the proforma respondents, the work of construction of the road on the aforesaid plots of land of the petitioners, was completed. The petitioners approached this court praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to remove the road unauthorizedly constructed on the aforesaid plots belonging to the petitioners and to restore it to its original condition.
7. Pursuant to the direction passed by this court, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and the Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad filed their respective reports. A report has also been filed by the BDO, Panskura – I dated August 22, 2024.
8. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the inhabitants of the locality submitted a representation and complaint before various authorities including the District Magistrate, praying for construction of a concrete road from Mahatpur Shitalamandir to NH 6 as the existing road is in a very poor condition. He submits that pursuant to the aforesaid complaints made by the inhabitants of the locality, the concerned Zilla Parishad submitted a proposal for construction of the road and the West Bengal State Rural Development Agency has given administrative approval to Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, the executing agency, to construct 2-kilometer concrete road from Mahatpur Shibmandir to Mahatpur Primary School. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submits that the construction of the road was made for improvement of the infrastructural facilities of the locality.
9. Learned advocate appearing for the Zilla Parishad submits that the work-order was issued by the Zilla Parishad but the entire work was done under the supervision of the concerned BDO.
10. Mr. Bandyopadhyay disputes the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate appearing for the Zilla Parishad and submits that the entire work was done under the supervision of the Zilla Parishad and not the BDO.
1
