DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner complains of police inaction.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction, against the State, claiming title in respect of an immovable property described in 'Ka' schedule of the plaint. Such suit was decreed on contest by a judgment and decree dated June 7, 1999. The State preferred an appeal therefrom. Such appeal was dismissed by an order dated February 22, 2002. Subsequent thereto, the State did not cause any obstruction for some time. However, just before the filing of the writ petition, the State started acting in violation of such decree of the suit Court. He submits that, adequate police protection should be granted.
(3.) Learned advocate for the State submits that, the property in question was acquired by the State in the year 1967. He submits that, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had received the compensation for such acquisition. Moreover, the petitioner has not executed the decree. The petitioner did not take any step for the purpose of correction of the record of rights. The plot is yet to be demarcated.;