RUMA CHATTERJEE AND ORS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rishad Medora
SD

WPA 31480 of 2026

Ruma Chatterjee & Ors.
VS
State of West Bengal & Ors.



For the petitioners : Mr. Jayanta Samanta,
Mrs. Karunamoyee Samanta,
Mr. Debendra Ghosal,
Mrs. Satabdi hattacharya,
Mr. Tapan Ghosal,
Ms. Diya Ghosal,
Mr. Sourav Mitra,
Mr. A. Mondal,
Mr. Gourav Singha,
Mr. Raja Paswan


For the State : Mr. D.N.Roy,Ld.G.P.
Mr. Madhu Jana, Ld. J.G.P.,
Mr. Avik Biswas
Ms. Manisha Paswan,
Mr. Dibashis Basu,
Ms. Sneha Dutta,
Mr. Purnendu das

For the Respondent No. 22 : Ms. Tanushreee Chakraborty,
Ms. Riddhi Naskar

th
Heard on : 30 October, 2026
th
Judgment on : : 30 October, 2026

2
Rishad Medora, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for, inter alia, a
writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to immediately and
rd
strictly implement an order dated October 6, 2026 passed by the learned 3
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No. 27 of 2026.
2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 to 32 are co-owners of a plot of land in
Howrah.
3. He further submits that the respondent no. 29 has unilaterally
authorised the respondent no. 33 to develop and construct a building on the
said plot of land.
4. Subsequently, upon getting knowledge of the foregoing, the petitioners
rd
filed a partition suit before the learned 3 Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Howrah seeking partition of the said plot of land.
rd
5. In such suit, by an order dated January 28, 2026, the learned 3 Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Howrah was pleased to direct the parties to the said
suit to maintain an order of status quo with respect to the nature, character and
possession of the suit property.
6. It is further submitted that such interim order is subsisting as on date.
7. Learned advocate representing the petitioners also submits that
subsequently, the respondent no. 33 was added as a party to the said partition
suit.

3
8. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the subsistence of the
aforesaid ad interim order of status quo, construction work is still taking place
on the said plot of land.
9. In support of such submission, he brings to the notice of this Court a
report dated September 30,2026 filed by a commissioner before the said Trial
Court.
10. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit were
constrained to file an application before the learned Trial Court under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
11. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated October 6, 2026 by
directing the Officer-in-Charge of Sankrail Police Station, Howrah to ensure that
the status quo order which had been passed by the said Court on January 28,
2026 and operative as on such date is properly implemented in accordance with
law at the suit locale in terms of its true spirit and purport by both parties and
violated by none.
12. It is further submitted that this order was brought to the knowledge of
the Officer-in-Charge of Sankrail Police Station, Howrah by the petitioners as
well as by their learned advocates.
13. Despite the same, the learned advocate representing the petitioners
submits that construction work is still going on over the said plot of land and the
Sankrail Police Station, Howrah is taking no action whatsoever.
14. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been compelled to file the
present writ petition and, accordingly, pray for appropriate orders.

4
15. Learned advocate representing the State has handed over an inquiry
report dated October 28, 2026 prepared by the Inspector-in-Charge of Sankrail
Police Station, Howrah. The same is taken on record.
16. A copy of the same has been served on the learned advocate
representing the petitioners.
17. Learned advocate representing the State submits that the Sankrail
Police Station, Howrah is duly abiding by the order dated October 6, 2026
passed by the said learned Trial Court. He submits that there has been no
inaction or wrong doing on the part of the police authorities. He further submits
that the allegations contained in the writ petition are baseless.
18. The private respondent no. 22 is represented. She leaves the matter to
the discretion of this Court.
19. None of the other respondents are represented despite service.
20. An affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on
record.
21. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, I find that the
absence of representation of the other respondents is immaterial.
22. I have considered the materials on record and heard the advocates
representing the parties.
23. There does not appear to be any significant controversy in this matter.
In view of the same, this writ petition i.e. WPA 31480 of 2026 is disposed of
by directing the respondent no. 4 to ensure that the order dated October 6, 2026
rd
passed by the learned 3 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah in Title Suit No
27 of 2026 is properly implemented in accordance with law.

5
24. No further order is required to be passed in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
25. There will be no order as to costs.
26. In view of the fact that no opposition has been called for, the allegations in the
writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.


(Rishad Medora, J.)