Item No.- 8 09.07.2026 Court No. 1 Rohan In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA (P) 89 of 2026 Jayanta Jana Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Gobinda Ch. Baidya Mr. Avilash Tripathi … for the Petitioner Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, AGP Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh … for the State Mr. Samiran Giri … for the Respondent Nos. 12 & 13 1. Affidavit of service filed in the Court be taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred praying for a direction upon the concerned respondents to complete the covered drain in terms of the notification and work order dated 3rd December, 2025, expeditiously. 3. Mr. Baidya, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the private respondent nos. 12 and 13 have illegally encroached upon a certain portion of Government land. The Government has undertaken a project for the construction of a drain over the said land; however, due to obstruction by the private respondent nos. 12 and 13, the work has been stopped, and as a result, the villagers have 2 been the worst sufferers. He further submits that the land was inspected by the Revenue Officer, and upon such inspection, it was found that certain portions of the land had been illegally encroached upon by the private respondent nos. 12 and 13. He submits that unless such land is recovered from the respondent nos. 12 and 13, the drain cannot be constructed. 4. Mr. Giri, learned advocate representing the private respondent Nos. 12 and 13, submits that certain villagers, out of personal grudge, attempted to encroach upon the private land belonging to the respondent nos. 12 and 13 and this incident compelled them to institute a civil suit being Title Suit No. 274 of 2025. He further submits that he intends to implead the concerned Government officials in the said suit which has been filed seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question. He further submits that the respondent nos. 12 and 13 are willing to hand over their own land if it is required for a public purpose; however, in that event, the concerned respondents must acquire the said land from the respondent nos. 12 and 13 by initiating acquisition proceedings. 5. In reply, Mr. Baidya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the private respondent nos. 12 and 13 had attempted to obtain an interim order restraining the concerned respondents from constructing the drain by filing an interlocutory application in the suit; however, they failed in such attempt. 3 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 7. Undisputedly, a civil suit concerning the land in question is pending before the competent Court of law, and certain disputed questions of fact have also been raised. In view thereof, travelling into the arena to adjudicate such disputed issues would amount to an improper exercise of jurisdiction in public interest litigation. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to cost. 9. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 10. 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.)