Surat Nabi Molla vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

On the face of this writ petition I find that it is a private dispute between the writ petitioner and the private respondent where the case of the writ

petitioner is that his lands as in paragraph 2 of the writ petition have become the subject of attack by the private respondent during the rainy reason;

the writ petitioner has annexed a copy of the record of rights without any document of title in support of his allegation that he purchased the said plot

no. 1124. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that the private respondent is seeking to dispossess the writ petitioner during rainy season for

cultivation.Â

The further case of the writ petitioner is that on June 18, 2015 his learned advocate made a representation to the private respondent to peacefully hand

over the land to his client immediately, if the private respondent failed to do it then legal steps (both Civil & Criminal) against him without any further

reference. Despite the aforesaid, a M.P. Case (M. P. Case NO. 408 of 2015) started before the Executive Magistrate, Kalna (paragraph 6),

wherein the writ petitioner procured a report from the police authorities at page 16 being Annexure ‘P-2’ to the writ petition, which purports to

describe the said property as being under “vog dakhal†of the writ petitioner, of which the private respondent is seeking to take possession. This

report is dated August 18, 2015.

When the writ petitioner’s own advocate had written on June 18, 2015 that the land was cultivated forcibly by the private respondent and that it

was under forcible possession of the private respondent and when a demand was made by the said leaned advocate of the writ petitioner under

instruction of the writ petitioner that the private respondent had to hand over the land to the writ petitioner, it is very clear that the land was in

possession of the private respondent when the writ petition was instituted.Â

This is by the own admission of the writ petitioner. Even if such possession was taken by force, it is no part of the business of the writ court to

interfere in the presence of an equally effective statutory alternative remedy both under civil law for such dispossession in the nature of nouvelle

disseisin which can be found under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended.Â

Therefore, I decline jurisdiction without direction of issuance of notice on the private respondent. It is a matter of some concern that this writ

petition which was instituted in 2015 without filing of any affidavit of service had remained on the docket of this Court.

The writ petition is dismissed as having been filed for a relief which the writ petitioner could have, if better advised, obtained from a civil or a criminal

court during the time that the matter had languished before the writ court.

The connected application being CAN 8858 of 2017 filed by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner is, therefore, no longer required to be decided

and is treated as on day’s list and dismissed as a consequence of the dismissal of the writ petition. This order shall not prevent the writ

petitioner for availing of any alternative remedy, if so advised. Needless to say that nothing I have recorded above shall be held to be binding on the

parties if and when such alternative remedy is availed.There shall be, however, no order as to costs.        Â