- (1.) THE writ petitioner claiming herself to be belonging to a tribal community has approached this court against police inaction and for extending police help in terms of the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Canning, South 24 - Parganas being Annexure -R -3 to the application being CAN 8828 of 2013.
(2.) IT is her case that her father was a riyat by way of "Rayati Bandobasta Patra" vide Patta issued Memo no. 31/72 -73 in respect of 40 decimal of land comprised in Plot No. 1776/1979 situated within the Mouza Gabbuni. It is her further case, after the death of her father, she being the sole legal heir became the absolute owner of the said property and in physical possession thereof.
(3.) ACCORDING to her case, the private respondent no.7, who is a very influential political person of the locality constantly making efforts to dispossess her from the said plot of land. When having no other alternative, she approached to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Canning, South 24 -Parganas and Sub -Divisional Officer has passed necessary order vide Annexure R -3 to the application being CAN 8828 of 2013 referred herein above directing the Officer -in -Charge, Jibantala Police Station to provide all police help and to ensure peaceful cultivation and possession thereof. But till date police has not taken any steps in this regard. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State filed action taken report and a current report which are already on record. It is contended that before passing the order vide annexure R -3 to the application being CAN 8828 of 2013 referred hereinabove, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Canning passed another order, which is annexure R -1 to the said application. It is then pointed out that being informed by the writ petitioner about the alleged misdeed of the respondent no.7, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Canning directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Canning -I, South -24 -Parganas to convene a five men committee meeting at the earliest for settlement of the dispute in accordance with Rule 295 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, but till date no action has been taken by the respondent no.5. He further submitted that on enquiry it appears, the land is in possession of the respondent no.7 but the writ petitioner being the patta holder, she is legally entitled over the possession of the land. He then submitted that police is ready and willing to take all steps soon necessary orders are passed by the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and without the same police has nothing to do. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as the State respondent. None appears on behalf of the private respondent no.7. Although the affidavit of service filed in court shows that the notice has duly been served upon him.;