ASHRAF HOSSAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner claims that he along with his other co-sharers is possessing some land acquired from their predecessor-in-interest and cultivating the same. It is further contended that if a person leaves India and resides in Bangladesh and becomes a citizen of Bangladesh, his undivided properties in India will devolve upon the Indian legal heirs only. The moment such person acquires citizenship of erstwhile East Pakistan, he looses his every right to the property which is situated in India and their ancestral property will devolve upon the remaining legal heirs residing in India. Such a person cannot sell or purchase any property which is lying in India and any type of alienation by him will be treated as illegal and null and void. One Golam Kader is the citizen of Bangladesh who has no right to enjoy the usufruct or money in respect of their ancestral property in India but he is collecting money through respondent no. 4, Jafar Sarkar, by intimidating the other legal heirs. He wanted to lodge a complaint on 24.05.2007 but the Officer-in- Charge concerned refused to lodge the general diary. So he sent written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Dadpur Police Station as well as District Intelligence Branch, Hooghly through Superintendent of Police, Hooghly by registered post with A/D on 24.05.2007 regarding certain illegal activities of the said respondent no. 4 Jafar Sarkar. But no action has been taken by them and they are also not giving any protection. Therefore, he has preferred this writ petition being an elderly citizen seeking appropriate direction upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to perform their duties as enjoined by the provisions of the Police Act, 1961, Indian Penal Code etc. with further prayer of ad interim order to the above effect.

(2.) I have heard the learned advocates for both the parties and perused the application with connected papers. It appears that no description of the property in India affected by the conduct of the respondent no. 4 has been specifically mentioned by the writ petitioner in his application. Unless he claims any right over any specified property, the Writ Court cannot consider his prayer for protection of such right and to bestow any benefit arising out of such right claimed in the petition. The general allegation made against the respondent no. 4 in his application dated 24.05.2007 (annexure P-2) addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Hooghly is a matter of investigation for Police in view of serious nature of the alleged offence mentioned therein. The alternative remedy in favour of the writ petitioner lies in lodging a complaint case before the Court having appropriate jurisdiction. Since such alternative remedy is still available Writ Court should not exercise its power at this stage.

(3.) Therefore, I hold that there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.