- (1.) This is a case of police inaction. According to the writ petitioners they have inherited a plot of land measuring about 34 khatas more or less situated within the premises No. 98A, Beliaghata Main Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata. The property in question is a vacant plot of land. It is their further case since the petitioners are out of town in connection with their employment and residing at different places of the country, they were not actually in a position to look after the same. Taking advantage of their absence, members of the two clubs, i.e. Beliaghata Vidyut Sangha and Amara Sabai Athletic Club have occupied a portion of the said land and built up their Club Rooms. It is contended that the petitioners have no objection against those two Club Rooms and they are ready and willing to give the said property to them but their entire grievance is this that the members of those two clubs are not allowing the petitioners to enjoy the suit property peacefully. It is further contended that although repeatedly police have been informed but police is not rendering any help to them so that they can enter into their said land and enjoy the same. In this regard he drew the attention of this Court to Annexure "P-3" of the writ application.
(2.) In support of his case the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Md. Shamin & Ors., reported in : (2006) 5 SCC 539. In this regard he drew my attention towards whatever have been held in paragraphs 7 and 10 thereof. The observation of the Apex Court in those two paragraphs are quoted below:- "7. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event respondents 1 to 3 herein were disputing the title and possession claimed by the appellants and were setting up rights in themselves including a claim of possession over portions of the property and in such a situation, a direction for police protection should not or could not be granted. Learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the Division Bench of the High Court and accepted by that Court. 10. It appears to us that this is a case where the State should be equally interested in seeing to it that the property was fully protected, until the scheme proposed by BIFR is implemented and the revival of the industry is ensured. It is said that six thousand workers are involved and their welfare, along with the welfare of the creditors and of the management, depends upon the scheme being put through. One would have expected the State of West Bengal to readily respond to a request for protecting the property from trespassers so as to ensure that the revival of a sinking industry is achieved and its workers are protected. Even otherwise, in a situation like the present, it is the duty of the police of the State to give necessary protection to the struggling industry to tide over the crises and protect its property from interference by lawless elements and unauthorised persons. Going by the Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, Regulations 666 and 669, it may even be possible to say that the protection in such circumstances should be afforded even without insisting on payment by the private party seeking protection. But in this case, the appellants have approached the Court praying for protection expressing their readiness to meet the charges for such protection on the basis that they are liable to pay such charges. In fact, the order for protection was extended to the appellants from the filing of the writ petition till this date only on that basis. Therefore, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to hold, on the facts of this case that the appellants have no obligation at all to meet the costs of the protection given to them by the police."
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State relied on three Judges' decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2007) 6 SCC 171 and further submitted that having regard to the facts the decision relied upon by him is a decision of a larger bench, the same shall prevail over the decision relied upon from the side of the petitioner. He then submitted this is a case purely of civil nature and, therefore, the remedy available to the writ petitioners lies in regular suit. According to the learned Counsel for the State the petitioners are not in possession of the said plot of lands as it transpires from the police report and therefore, the police without any order of a competent Court cannot put the petitioner to the possession thereof by removing the private respondent.;