Calcutta High Court affirms that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for private property disputes among family members unless all necessary parties, including alleged wrongdoers, are impleaded; the Court’s order is binding on subordinate courts in similar scenarios and clarifies the limited role of police as confined to maintaining law and order.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/19536/2025 of ANUP TOLA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0394302025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for maintainability of writ petitions in family/joint property disputes |
| Type of Law | Property law, writ jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked for private disputes relating to undivided ancestral property among relations without impleading all concerned parties. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Calcutta High Court held that where the petitioner complains about relatives allegedly changing the nature and character of undivided ancestral property but fails to implead them as parties, the writ petition cannot lead to substantive relief. The Court clarified that police are limited to maintaining law and order and cannot resolve such private disputes. Any relief in such property disputes requires all necessary parties to be before the Court. The scope of writ jurisdiction does not extend to adjudication of familial property disputes involving title or possession where private parties are not arrayed as respondents. The petition was disposed of without costs or substantive relief, affirming the limited judicial intervention available under Article 226 in such matters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The dispute relates to undivided ancestral property with no demarcation. The petitioner alleges that relatives are altering the property’s status but has not made them parties to the writ petition. The State produced a report reflecting a related proceeding filed by a third party under Section 163(2) of BNSS. The petitioner is apprehensive about his share of the property being grabbed. The Court held that police can only keep surveillance to ensure law and order is maintained, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the State of West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts outside West Bengal adjudicating similar property dispute writ petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that writ petitions concerning joint family property disputes must implead all necessary parties, especially alleged wrongdoers, for any effective relief.
- Reinforces the limited role of police in such disputes: only to ensure law and order, not to adjudicate private property rights.
- Lawyers should ensure all necessary respondents are impleaded in writs seeking directions on property disputes to avoid summary disposal.
- Court affirms that the writ forum is not the appropriate stage for determining property entitlements in the absence of all affected parties.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s complaint pertained to alleged wrongful action by his relations regarding undivided ancestral property, but those relatives were not made parties to the writ petition.
- The State submitted a report detailing a related proceeding under Section 163(2) of BNSS filed by another party.
- The Court recognised the petitioner’s apprehension regarding his share but emphasised the absence of demarcation and the petitioner’s failure to implead necessary parties.
- The Court concluded that relief could not be granted in such circumstances and confined police intervention to surveillance for law and order maintenance only.
- The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, elaborating that Article 226 jurisdiction is not to be exercised in private disputes lacking all affected parties as respondents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Alleged that relations were changing the nature and character of undivided ancestral property.
- Sought prevention of possible dispossession regarding his share.
State:
- Submitted a report indicating there was a related proceeding under Section 163(2) BNSS by another individual (Ajayendra Tola).
- Stated the role of the police would be limited to ensuring law and order.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from undivided ancestral property with no demarcation between the shares of the parties. The petitioner alleged that his relations were attempting to convert or change the status of the property, raising apprehension about being dispossessed. The petitioner, however, did not implead those relations as respondents in the writ petition. Additionally, a proceeding under Section 163(2) of BNSS was already initiated by a third party regarding the property. The State submitted a report, and the Court was asked to direct the police to intervene.
Statutory Analysis
The Court referred to Section 163(2) of the BNSS, noting that a proceeding under this section had already been initiated by one Ajayendra Tola. No interpretation or application of other statutory or constitutional provisions was detailed beyond the procedural requirements for filing a writ petition.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing legal principles regarding the scope and maintainability of writ jurisdiction in private property disputes were reaffirmed.