← Library
Calcutta High CourtWPA/29218/2025disposed

Action Club Bagda,Mohanpur And ANR v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

2026-01-09Hon'Ble Justice Krishna Rao2 pages

16. 09.01.2026.

Court No.25.

(Pritam) WPA 29218 of 2025.

Action Club, Bagda, Mohanpur & Anr.

-Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Amrita Pandey, Ms. Sayanwita Aaddya.

....for the petitioners.

Mr. Samrat Sen, Ld. AAAG, Mr. Arindam Mondal.

.......for the State.

Mr. Manoranjan Jana.

.....for the private respondents.

1. The petitioners have filed the present application being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the notice dated 5th December, 2025 issued by the BL & LRO, Mohanpur, Paschim Medinipur to the Assistant Engineer, Kharagpur Sub-Division that plot no.1277 & 1278 will be demarcated on 16th December, 2015 at 01:00 p.m. The apprehension of the petitioners is that in the name of the demarcation, the authority will evict the petitioners from the property in question.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the notice is issued only for the demarcation of the land. He further submits that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, the petitioners have already preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal is pending before the

Appellate Authority. He submits that during the demarcation, the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed.

3. Mr. Manoranjan Jana, learned counsel appearing for Tapodhan Senapati submits that they are the necessary parties in the present writ application as the proceeding has been initiated on his complaint. He submits that Tapodhan Senapati has not been added as a party though he is a necessary party, who was the writ petitioner in WPA 2532 of 2025. This Court finds that the petitioner has not been made him as party in the writ application though he is a necessary party. The petitioner has only challenged the notice of demarcation and the State has already submitted that at the time of demarcation if the authorities find that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question, they will not disturb the possession of the petitioners till the disposal of the appeal.

4. As the authorities have submitted that the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed till the disposal of the appeal, no further order can be passed in the present writ application.

5. With the above observations, the writ application is disposed of.

(Krishna Rao, J.)