Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/48/2026 of DULAN MOHANTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 14 July 2026
Item No.27 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 48 of 2026 Dulan Mohanta - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Imbrahim Shaikh Mr. B. Shaikh …. For the petitioner Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh …. For the State The present Public
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
14.07.2026 Item No.27 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 48 of 2026
Dulan Mohanta
- Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Imbrahim Shaikh Mr. B. Shaikh …. For the petitioner
Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh …. For the State
The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to stop the filling up of a pond situated at Dag No.1356 measuring an area of 51 sataks of land. Mr. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the pond being Hal Dag No.1356. He alleges that local hooligans and miscreants are trying to fill up the said pond illegally and to disposes the petitioner. Such facts were reported to the competent authority but in vain and as such he was constrained to prefer a PIL earlier being WPA(P) 26 of 2025 which was disposed of by an order dated 27th February, 2025 granting leave to the petitioner to submit a representation to the District Land and Land Reforms Officer with a further direction upon the said officer to consider the same. Records reveal that in compliance of the order dated 27th February, 2025, the respondent no.3 has already passed an order on 24th September, 2025. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State denies the contention of the petitioner and submits that no public interest is involved in the present case. Let the written instruction, as placed, be kept on record. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It would be explicit from the records that the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the concerned plot of land and on the basis of the representation submitted alleging dispossession and alteration of nature and character of the land, the respondent no.3 has passed an order refusing to entertain the petitioner’s claim. In the said conspectus, it cannot be totally ruled out that the petitioner’s private interest is involved in the matter and in the said conspectus, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the PIL will not prevent the petitioner from challenging
the order of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer before the competent forum, if so advised and in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)