SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 9745

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
TIRTHANKAR MAZUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS – Respondent
WPA 364 / 2020



IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH W.P.A. No. 364 of 2020 With CAN 1 of 2025 Mr. Tirthankar Mazumdar -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Petitioner (In person) : Mr. Tirthankar Mazumdar.

For the State : Mr. Tarak Karan, Adv.

Heard On : 30.06.2025 Judgement On : 30.06.2025 Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

Petitioner approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent police authorities concerned and each one of them to take all immediate and effective steps against the respondent nos. 6 & 7 hereof as also against all their rowdy associates involved in the said matter of law-breaking as aforementioned and as it has been detailed in the so many representations/written complaints made by the instant petitioner to the concerned police authorities from time to time all of which have been made necessary annexure to the instant writ petition as Annexure P/5 collectively thereof.

b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commending the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to this writ petition as also their agents and associates to demolish, remove and wipe out all the newly raised structures of the Respondent nos. 6 & 7 as also their men or agents or associates on the said land/lands in reference forthwith of course, at the cost of the said Respondents Nos. 6 & 7 as well as their men or agents or associates;

c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commending the respondents no. 6 & 7 to this writ petition as also their agents and associates to refrain from disturbing the lawful possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands in reference lawfully held by him and his other co-sharers and which have been particularly described in paragraph no. 2 of the instant writ petition as also from raising further structure or from remodeling, rehearing or renovating the illegally raised existing structures as also from planting or cultivating bamboos and big or large sized trees on the said lands in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the instant writ petition or otherwise in view of the solemn order to be passed on the instant writ petition;

d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the Respondent authorities concerned to certify and transmit the records of the case to this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may be administered by way of passing appropriate order or direction;

e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) & (d) hereinabove;

f) Interim order or orders in terms of prayers (a), (b) & (c)

hereinabove;

g) Ad-interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) hereinabove against respondent nos. 6 & 7 as well as their rowdy men or agents or associates concerned till the disposal of the Rule;

h) Costs of and incidental to the instant writ petition;

i) Any other order or direction as it would deem fit and proper to your Lordships.

The facts of the present case are to the effect that the present petitioner feeling helpless in respect of the atrocities inflicted by one Md. Sahidul Haque (respondent no. 6) and his associate for grabbing his ancestral property approached the administrative authorities, the Superior Police Authorities as well as the local Madhyamgram Police Station, but the same did not yield any result, as the private respondents by taking the law in their own hands stacked building materials and also demolished the temporary bamboo structures as well as the bamboo storage/banana trees and harmed the fishes which were available in the pond.

Petitioner and one Lila Sarkar thereafter filed Title Suit No. 459/2019 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat with prayers for ad-interim injunction before the civil court for the purpose of restraining the defendants from disturbing the lawful possession of the plaintiffs (which included the petitioner herein).

Petitioner also preferred an application under s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top