Ashutosh Talukdar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petition is moved on service. From the records, it appears that the writ petitioner is aggrieved by what he says is inaction on the part of the

Police in processing his complaint. The complaint leads to immovable property. This immovable property is described by the writ petitioner as follows:

“… a land measuring about 10 acres lying and situate at Mouza: Madurdaha, J.L. No. 12, R.S. No. 212 in R.S. Dag No. 441, under Khatian No.

195/1…†His further submissions include that a civil suit has been filed, interlocutory process taken out temporary injunctions/interim injunctions have

been granted. Process has also been issued by the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate but the Police, for the reasons, best known to them, are not

taking action.

Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submits that the property is not that of the writ

petitioner. He produces a copy of an application being CAN 552 of 2018 which was taken out by one Manoj Kumar Chakraborty and Pratima

Chakraborty and one Nirala Properties Ltd. According to Mr. Choudhury, the said Manoj Kumar Chakraborty and Pratima Chakraborty are the

owners of this property who purchased the registered document. He further submits that Pratima Chakraborty is the respondent No. 3 in the present

writ petition. He submits the reason why the Police are not taking any steps is because of the pendency of the review petition being RVW No. 183 of

2016. He further submits that the review application and several other applications and an order passed in the review petition dated 14.02.2018 where

the property was taken into custodial stages by the Hon'ble Division Bench and there is an allegation of lack of title.

He submits that these have been suppressed by the writ petitioner whereas the writ petitioner has submitted that not being a party, he had no

knowledge of them. In such view of the matter, the petitioner submits that this is a case where there are suppression of material facts and allegation

of an adequate statutory remedy and civil disputes are disputes relating to title.

On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the State submits that the cause of action of this petition is the Police authorities not complying

with a lawful order giving rise to a cause of action under the Police Act, 1861. He submits that whoever the property belongs to, he has made

complaint, it must be taken to its logical conclusion if the ingredients of offence are made out.

At this stage, the State submits a report signed by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station on the basis of which the State submits that

the entirety of the plot was surveyed and after demarcation, it was found that “This is also to mention that on 16.09.16, the Chief valuar and

surveyor of KMC conducted the survey and demarcation works in RS plot no. 345 and 441 of MouzaMadurdaha as vested land and the land was

demarked by the authority of the KMC. Regarding the RVW No.183 of 2016 connected with FMA No.43 of 2011, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta

on

14.02.2018 appointed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division as a Special officer of the Ld. Court to ensure that ‘no construction take

place on the property which forms subject matter of these proceedings. He shall also ensure the nature and character of the land is not altered or

changed unless directed otherwise by this Court’. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner of Police submitted the report before the Hon'ble High

Court on 13.04.18. As such the matter is in still sub-judice. (Annexure-3 & 4)â€​

In addition, the said report discloses that the Police are taking action in respect of the matter. In such view of the matter, let a copy of this report be

kept with the record and the parties shall be entitled to obtain certified copies of this report in accordance with law. After the copies are obtained by

the respective parties if they are aggrieved, they can ask for further reliefs in the present writ petition or in the pending proceedings before the Hon'ble

Division Bench as they may be advised in accordance with law. Such leave, I grant today shall include amendment of pleadings.

I believe that affidavits ought to be exchanged in this matter. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks after reopening and after

considering the copy of the report. Reply, if any, be filed three weeks thereafter. There shall be liberty to mention including for inclusion in the hearing

list before the appropriate Bench after the Vacation.