KRISHNAPADA KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners claiming themselves to be the lawful owners of a plot of land measuring .95 acres comprised in Dag No. 197, Khatian No. 26, Mouza Kendana, Saltora, Bankura have come out with a case that Sita Ram Majhi, Ram Kinkar Majhi and Rampada Majhi who were jointly owned and possessed the said plot of land, settled the same in favour of the father of the writ petitioners and after their death, the petitioners being their sole legal heirs became the lawful owner thereof. However, during the revisional settlement operation the record of rights was not corrected and the said Sita Ram Majhi, Ram Kinkar Majhi and Rampada Majhi were shown to be the lawful owner thereof. Since the private respondent No. 5, who is one of the co -sharers, disturbed their possession in various ways, the writ petitioners filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 5 of 1983 in the court of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Bankura for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect thereof, against the private respondent, who was one of the defendants in the said suit. After the said suit was decreed ex parte, an appeal was filed but the same was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Bankura was affirmed. However, admittedly the said decree was never put for execution.

(2.) NOW , it is contended since suit has been decreed there cannot be any further dispute so far as the petitioners right, title and interest in respect thereof despite that the private respondent No. 5 illegally and forcibly has been encroaching their properties and although the said incident was reported to the police but no action has been taken against them.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Subhabrata Das, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 5 vehemently contended, under the guise of the decree, it is the writ petitioners, who are encroaching the property of the respondent No. 5 and the allegations made against him, are absolutely false. He further submitted that even assuming that his client is encroaching the property illegally and unauthorisedly, it is for a competent civil court to adjudicate the same and not for the police authority. He lastly added according to the R.S. record of rights the land belonged to his client and if the petitioners have any grievances against the same the remedy is to move under Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In this regard, he referred the decision in the case of Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and Anr. Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha and Ors., 1991 AIR(SC) 2251.