ARATIPRAVANASKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of police inaction. According to the writ petitioners they have inherited a plot of land measuring about 34 khatas more or less situated within the premises No. 98A, Beliaghata Main Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata. The property in question is a vacant plot of land. It is their further case since the petitioners are out of town in connection with their employment and residing at different places of the country, they were not actually in a position to look after the same. Taking advantage of their absence, members of the two clubs, i.e. Beliaghata Vidyut Sangha and Amara Sabai Athletic Club have occupied a portion of the said land and built up their Club Rooms. It is contended that the petitioners have no objection against those two Club Rooms and they are ready and willing to give the said property to them but their entire grievance is this that the members of those two clubs are not allowing the petitioners to enjoy the suit property peacefully. It is further contended that although repeatedly police have been informed but police is not rendering any help to them so that they can enter into their said land and enjoy the same. In this regard he drew the attention of this Court to Annexure "P-3" of the writ application.

(2.) In support of his case the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Md. Shamin & Ors., reported in : (2006) 5 SCC 539. In this regard he drew my attention towards whatever have been held in paragraphs 7 and 10 thereof. The observation of the Apex Court in those two paragraphs are quoted below:-

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State relied on three Judges' decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2007) 6 SCC 171 and further submitted that having regard to the facts the decision relied upon by him is a decision of a larger bench, the same shall prevail over the decision relied upon from the side of the petitioner. He then submitted this is a case purely of civil nature and, therefore, the remedy available to the writ petitioners lies in regular suit. According to the learned Counsel for the State the petitioners are not in possession of the said plot of lands as it transpires from the police report and therefore, the police without any order of a competent Court cannot put the petitioner to the possession thereof by removing the private respondent.