JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

1. Sri Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborti , learned counsel appears for appellant and Mr. Ashim Kr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the State appears.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPA 22014 of 2024. The principal grievance put forth by appellant before learned Single Judge was about alteration of the revenue record to his detriment by the Revenue Officers. Thus, he named two Revenue Officers, who had allegedly altered the revenue record and prayed for a direction to the police to take action against them. In addition, it is canvassed that revenue record is illegally altered.

4. The learned Single Judge opined that so far alleged illegality/alteration in the record of right is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to take steps before appropriate forum. So far second aspect regarding involvement of two officers is concerned, the Court opined that said two officers named by appellant were not posted in Revenue Department in 2016 when revenue record was allegedly altered. Thus, no action was directed to be taken against those officers.

5. Learned counsel for appellant raised two fold submissions. Firstly, he submits that so far correction of record of right is concerned, he will avail the remedy before the appropriate forum under the law. So far finding of learned Single Judge based on police report regarding involvement of two officers in altering the record is concerned, learned counsel for appellant urged that police or the learned Single Judge may be right in holding that said two officers were not there in the department in 2016 but question of illegally altering the record by somebody on extraneous consideration cannot be denied. The appellant is aggrieved to this extent.

6. In our opinion, for first grievance regarding correction of record of rights, liberty is rightly reserved by learned Single Judge to approach the appropriate statutory forum. So far second aspect is concerned, no writ of Mandamus can be issued for this purpose. If appellant is aggrieved and prefers a complaint to the police for reducing it as an FIR and it is not reduced as an FIR or investigation is not done in proper manner, the remedy is elsewhere.

7. This Court has drawn curtains on this aspect in a recent matter in the case of Sourav Mitra vs. Swati Chakraborty Bhattacharya & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9425. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:

“7. On careful perusal of the prayers made by the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner it thus appears to this court that it is the primary grievance of the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner regarding inaction of the police authority in registering FIR and in initiating police case on the basis of her complaint dated 17.09.2025. The second fold of the grievance of the Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is also the inaction of the police authority in assisting her in opening the padlock of the said flat as has been allegedly put by the appellant/private Respondent No. 7.

8. It thus, appears to us that indisputably at the time of filing of the said writ petition the writ petitioner was out of possession of the said flat, may be on account of allegedly putting of padlock by the appellant Respondent No. 7.

9. The moot question cropped up before us as to whether the learned Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition can at all grant the reliefs as prayed for by passing the order impugned.

10. At this juncture, we propose to look to the provisions of Section 173 (corresponding Section 154, Cr. P.C.) and Section 175 (corresponding Section 156, Cr. P.C.) of the Bhartya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS in short) which are reproduced hereunder in verbatim:

“173. Information in cognizable cases.-(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charg