October 28, 2025 Sl. No.5 Court No.1 s.biswas WPA(P) 102 of 2022 Kanailal Pramanik and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Amitabrata Ray, GP Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Rudranil De ... for the State Mr. Sk. Jayeel Hossain ... for the respondent nos.11-18, 20 & 21 1. None appears for the petitioners even on the pass over round. This court on 4th September, 2025 granted last chance to the petitioners to argue the matter. The State and private respondents are present. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners in the present public interest litigation (PIL) is that a plot of land which is in fact ‘samashan’ is being used for cremation purposes and therefore a direction may be issued to demolish the construction and ensure that the land is used only for cremation purposes. 4. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sutahata-II, Purba Medinipur by his report dated 28.06.2022 stated that the land is classified as ‘samashan’. The land in question is used as cremation ground and a permanent structure of crematorium exists there. The report further says that there is no permanent structure on the 2 ‘samashan’ land, no garbage or any sign of village ‘haat’ has been found. The petitioners have not chosen to file any exception to this report filed way back in June 2022. 5. Affidavit-of-opposition is filed by respondent nos.11 to 18 and 20 and 21. In this affidavit-in- opposition, it was clearly averred that the land in question is ‘samshan’. However, the said ‘samshan’ land was being used by antisocial elements for use of drug, etc. In order to prevent that, a committee was constituted by the villagers. Certain sports events were conducted to boost character building of the young residents of the village. A tree plantation programme was also conducted in the ‘samshan’ land. The photographs are annexed with the affidavit-in- opposition. In view of these activities to prevent drug sellers, the vested interested persons who use the ‘samshan’ land for their benefit, they are aggrieved and the present petition is in fact not a public interest but to ensure status quo ante. It is further stated that there is no single structure made on the ‘samshan’ land and villagers are vigilant that the ‘samshan’ land is not permitted to be used for any illegal purposes. 6. Interestingly, along with the aforesaid report of the BL&LRO, Sutahata-II, a communication dated 19.01.2022 sent by Revenue Inspector, Sutahata- 3 II, is filed which supports the finding given by the BL&LRO, Sutahata-II in his report. 7. As noticed, the petitioners have not filed any exception/reply to the said report and affidavit-in- opposition. Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve the stand taken in the report and affidavit-in- opposition. Having said so, it is clear that in view of said exception taken by us, no public interest is involved in this matter. Instead, it is clear that no permanent structure has been made in the said ‘samshan’ land. Efforts are being made to protect the said land by the villagers. The PIL sans substances and is hereby dismissed. (Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.) (Smita Das De, J.)