Calcutta High Court
MAT/49/2026 of SANJIB KUMAR DEY AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 1 September 2026
Item No.8 Ct. No.11 MKP IN THE HIGH COURT AT
01.09.2026
Item No.8
Ct. No.11
MKP
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
M.A.T.49 of 2026
With
CAN 01 of 2026
Sanjib Kumar Dey And Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal And Ors
Mr. Arnab Saha, (V/C)
Md. Shoaib Akhtar.
…..For the Appellants
Ms. Suman Sehanabis
………For the Respondents/
Municipality nos.8,9,10
Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld.AGP
Ms. Esha Acharya.
………….For the State
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.
1. The instant appeal is directed against an order dated 09.01.2026.
2. Briefly, the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is primarily directed against the alleged occupation of land by the Municipality and the construction raised thereon. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that complicated questions of title had been raised in the writ petition. In such circumstances, the Trial Court had directed the petitioner to approach the District Land and Land Reforms Officer who would decide the matter in accordance with law.
3. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the land belongs to the appellant and there were no questions of title to be adjudicated.
4. On behalf of the Municipality respondent, it is submitted that the land in question is recorded in the name of the Collector, Cooch Behar and the same is vested land. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
5. The facts of the case reveal that the grievance of the appellant is directed against in respect of premises which is in the name of the Collector, Cooch Behar. The land had been identified for construction of the Primary Health Centre. The unauthorized occupants had been served eviction notices and construction has also commenced. In this background, the contention of the appellants that they are the owners of the title is disputed and it does not appear from the admitted record maintained in the office of the Block of Land and Land Reforms Officers.
6. In such circumstances, in view of the disputed questions of fact which arise for consideration, the same cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants have approached the District Land and Land Reforms Officers for correction of the Records of Rights.
7. Accordingly, there is no infirmity with the discretion which has been exercised by the Trial Court in dismissing the writ petition. There are complicated questions of fact and title which cannot be adjudicated upon in this summary proceeding.
8. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal MAT 49 of 2026 along with CAN 1 of 2026 is dismissed.
9. It is made clear that in adjudicating the rival rights of the parties. The Land and Land Reforms Officers is not to be influenced by any observation in this
order, insofar as the merits of the case are involved.
10. With the above directions, MAT 49 of 2026 along with CAN 1 of 2026 stands dismissed.
11. Urgent certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties if applied upon completion of all required formalities.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)