Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that he is the lawful owner of four plots of land, danga comprised in Plot Nos. 822 and 824 and water body comprised in Plot Nos. 825 and 834 in Mouza Ranapara, Amta, Howrah. It is the further case of the writ petitioner, since the private respondents were trying to dispossess him from the said plots of land illegally, unauthorisedly and disturbing his peaceful enjoyment of the said properties, he filed a Title Suit, being the Title Suit No. 107 of 2004. The Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amta, Howrah on 17th May 2011 allowed the said suit and the same was decreed on contest. It is further added, while allowing the said suit, the trial court declared that the writ petitioner has exclusive right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and restrained the defendant, i.e. the private respondents herein, by an order of permanent injunction from disturbing the writ petitioner in his peaceful enjoyment of the suit property. However, in spite of such order, the private respondents are still trying to dispossess the writ petitioner and disturbing him in peaceful enjoyment of the said properties. It is also alleged the private respondents are threatening the writ petitioner regularly with dire consequences and creating breach of peace in the locality. According to the writ petitioner the aforesaid incident was immediately reported to the local police station requesting them to take immediate legal action against the private respondents and to ensure the order of the civil court is upheld. But, no action has been taken by the police although it is their statutory duty under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861.
(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 5 pointed out that nearly a year back, the respondent No. 6 has expired and his client, the respondent No. 5, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed in connection with the aforesaid suit, preferred an appeal and by a judgment and order delivered on May 16, 2014 the Learned Additional District Judge, Amta, Howrah disposed of the appeal, upholding the order of the trial court to the extent that the writ petitioner has the lawful right, title and interest in respect of the plot nos. 822, 824, 825 and 834 but not in respect of the plot No. 823, a water body. He further submitted that the allegation of threatening the petitioner is absolutely false and contended without putting the decree in execution, he cannot approach the police authority for enforcement of the order passed by the Civil Court and on the refusal, if any of the police, no case for police inaction can be sustained. He submitted that this is a fit case, which should be dismissed with costs. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State adopted the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents but emphasized on the point that after the title suit as well as the suit for permanent injunction was decreed, if there is any attempt on the part of the petitioner to violate such order, the remedy of the plaintiff, i.e. the petitioner herein is to approach the competent Civil Court for execution of the same. He then added in connection with this case two General Diaries were lodged to the police, since the same did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, although police has not recorded any FIR but having regard to the conduct of the private respondents, two prosecution reports against them, have been filed before the court of the Executive Magistrate for initiation of a proceeding under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. He submitted that this writ application has no merits and liable to be dismissed.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions as also the relevant provision of the law referred.;