Subhodip Dutta vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

In connection with the present writ petition, an application for addition of party, being CAN No. 5250 of 2018, has been filed by Midland Medicare

Ltd. and one of its Directors, namely, Kallol Ghosh. It has, inter alia, been stated in the said application that the petitioner entered into an agreement

for sale with Anima Dutta and Partha Pratim Das, who are the Directors of the applicant no.1 and such agreement was executed by the petitioner

upon acceptance of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, as detailed in the memo of consideration annexed to the said agreement. On the date of execution of

the said agreement, a deed of lease for 11 years was also executed in favour of the said Anima Dutta and Partha Pratim Das by the petitioner.

Placing reliance upon the said documents, it has been argued that the applicants are necessary parties to the present application.

Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the said application, I am of the opinion that the presence of the applicants is necessary for adjudication of

the present matter and, accordingly, they are added as party respondents to the present writ petition.

The learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner is granted leave to effect necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition by impleading the

applicants as added respondent nos. 8 and 9 to the instant writ petition. The application, being CAN No. 5250 of 2018 is, accordingly, disposed of. The

present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following reliefs:

(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to take immediate and necessary action against the private respondent

herein for acting beyond the statutory limit as per the complaint made by your petitioner;

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent policeauthorities to act in accordance with law and to protect the life of the family

members of your petitioner and also the property of your petitioner.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of a building at 26 B.T. Road, Sukchar near Raja

Road, P.S.Khardah, District- 24-Parganas (North) (in short, the said property) wherein, on the basis of a lease deed, one Anima Dutta was running a

Nursing Home and without permission of the petitioner, she sublet a part of the building to third parties who set up a Nursing Home, namely, Sumangal

Hospital. The license of the said Hospital was subsequently cancelled by a memo dated 3rd July, 2017. After such cancellation of license, the

authorities of the said hospital abandoned their occupied portion of the building and posted security guards and they were interfering with the

petitioner’s egress and ingress.

The petitioner had all along been in possession of the said property. But surprisingly on 24th May, 2018 the police officers of Khardah P.S. forcibly

and illegally barged into his property and threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. Such act of attempted forcible dispossession was immediately

reported to the police authorities by the petitioner but no steps were taken. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application under section 144(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which an order was passed on 12th April, 2018 directing the respondent no. 3 to see that the ingress and egress

of the schedule property is not disturbed without due process of law. In spite of the said order, appropriate steps were not taken by the police

authorities and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

He further submits that the petitioner, who is the owner of the said property, cannot be dispossessed except in due process of law and the police

authorities cannot involve themselves in the dispute and forcibly dispossess the petitioner. Such action warrants immediate interference of this Court.

Per contra, Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the private

respondents. Both the parties were called by the respondent no. 3 and were directed to amicably settle the dispute but the parties were not agreeable.

As the dispute is purely civil in nature, the police authorities cannot interfere in the same.

Mr. Garai, learned advocate appearing for the applicants/added respondents submits that the property in question was handed over to the applicants on

the basis of an agreement for sale executed on 1st August, 2011 and the applicant no.1 is in possession of the said property. The allegation that the

applicants/ added respondents have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner is absolutely unfounded. He further submits that one Giridhari Das has filed a

suit against the petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the said property and against an order passed in the said suit, revisional applications have

been preferred which are pending before this Court.

Records reveal that an agreement for sale was executed by the petitioner in favour of Anima Dutta and Partha Pratim Das upon receipt of an amount

of Rs.30,00,000/-. It also appears that the petitioner executed a lease deed pertaining to the said property in favour of Anima Dutta and Partha Pratim

Das. The property details given in the schedule of the said agreement, in the lease deed and in the gift deed tallies. As such, the dispute amongst the

petitioner and the private respondents is pertaining to the same property.

From the arguments as advanced and from the averments as made in the writ petition, it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and the

private respondents is purely civil in nature involving disputed questions of fact pertaining to an immovable property which cannot be made the subject

matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is unable to grant the relief, as prayed for by the

petitioner, and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.