Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/425/2026 of MD. SAJED ALI AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 3 September 2026
Sl. No.4 Court No.1 s.biswas WPA(P) 425 of 2026 Md. Sajed Ali and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Amit Kumar Dutta ... for the petitioners Ms. Smita Pal ... for the State Mr. Suman Basu ... for the respondent no.2 Mr. Monjit Bhattacharjee Mr. Chandan Das ... for the respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
September 3, 2026 Sl. No.4 Court No.1 s.biswas
WPA(P) 425 of 2026
Md. Sajed Ali and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Amit Kumar Dutta ... for the petitioners Ms. Smita Pal ... for the State Mr. Suman Basu ... for the respondent no.2 Mr. Monjit Bhattacharjee Mr. Chandan Das ... for the respondent no.9
Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present public interest litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents, particularly, the respondent no.3 to take immediate steps for removal of the illegal and unauthorized construction being made by the private respondent no.9, upon Dag No.783, Khatian No.1433, Mouza Kshirkundi, P.S. Pandua, District Hooghly. Beside the residence of the respondent no.9, there is a panchayat drain and the same has been covered upon raising a wall 8 inches high above the level of the road. As a consequence thereof, the villagers are not being able to use the said passage/road. The fact that such construction has been illegally raised would be explicit from the complaint lodged by the Pradhan of the concerned gram panchayat on 19th
August, 2026 to the respondent no.6 and from the letter dated 18th August, 2026 issued by a member of the concerned gram panchayat to the Pradhan. However, no steps have been taken by the authorities to remove such construction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court. Ms. Pal, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the dispute urged in the present writ petition is private in nature. The private respondent no.9 has already preferred an application under Section 163 of the B.N.S. against the son of the petitioner no.3, the petitioner no.4 and others. In terms of the order passed in the same, an enquiry has also been conducted by the concerned police authorities. Let the document, as placed, be kept on record. Mr. Manjit Bhattacharjee, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent no.9 and disputes the contention of the petitioners. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The grievance of the petitioners is against an alleged illegal construction raised by the respondent no.9 over the public pathway. However, records reveal that the respondent no.9 has disputed such contention and an application under Section 163 of the B.N.S. has been filed impleading some of the petitioners herein. There is a dispute as to whether the construction alleged is within the property of the respondent no.9. As such, it cannot be ruled out that the dispute amongst the parties is private in nature. The writ petition does not appear to have been preferred for redressal of any public wrong rather than private grudges. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)