IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi M.A.T. 1040 of 2025 Hiralal Pitari @ Chakraborty & Ors.

vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With CAN 1 of 2025 For the Appellants : Mr. Kallol Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sakya Maity Mr. Swapnamoy Sarkar For the State : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. A.G., Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Ld. G.P., Ms. Sumita Shaw Mr. Soumen Chatterjee For the Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 : Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar Mr. Amit Ranjan pati Mr. Sunayan Ghosh Ms. K. Kubra Heard & Judgment on : July 25, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioners and directed against an order dated May 8, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 9588 of 2025.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge noted that there are civil as well as criminal proceedings pending between the private parties. Learned Single Judge also noted that there are orders passed in the writ jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge, therefore, decided to dispose of the writ petition by requesting the police authorities to oversee that no breach of peace and tranquility takes place at the locale and/or any untoward incident results by reason of strained relationship existing between the private parties.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the right, title and interest of the appellants in respect of the property concerned stand crystallized by dint of an order passed by the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer. He submits that 23.98 acres of land are Raiyati land and 5.72 acres of land belongs to the deity.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, by way of a writ petition being W.P. 1083 (W) of 2004 which was disposed of by an order dated February 20, 2004, the Writ Court directed the police to maintain peace at the locale. He refers to a subsequent order dated October 5, 2005 passed in W.P. No. 13976 (W) of 2005. He submits that again police were directed to render assistance to the appellants.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the private respondents filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Paschim Medinipur being T.S. No. 380 of 2024. Initially, an order of injunction was passed in civil suit which stood vacated. Despite the order of injunction standing vacated, the private respondents are obstructing the appellants from enjoying the usufructs of the immovable properties concerned. He submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in not directing the police authorities to ensure that the appellants are in a position to harvest the crops cultivated on the property concerned.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that none of the private respondents were parties to the earlier two writ petitions in which the orders dated February 2, 2004 and October 5, 2005 were passed. He submits that a Public Interest Litigation was filed which was disposed of by an order dated September 12, 2024 being W.P.A. (P) 373 of 2024. He submits that the private respondents filed a civil suit being T.S. 380 of 2024 in which an interim order was passed. The private respondents filed a miscellaneous appeal against the order vacating the order of injunction.

Such miscellaneous appeal is still pending.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that some of the private respondents belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The appellants are preventing the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the village from offering puja at the deity. He submits that the debuttor was held to be a public property. Consequently, he submits that appellants cannot claim right over a public property.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the police complaint. She submits that no specific incident was stated in such police complaint for the police to take any steps or measures.

9. App