20.08.2026 rpan/18 WPA (P) 403 of 2026 Gour Mallick & Others - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Mr. Sarthak Dey, Ms. Payel Khanra … for the Petitioners. Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Mr. Tarun Kumar Jana … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. Debashis Das, Mr. Subhomoy Paul, Mr. Anish Chakraborty … for the Private Respondent Nos.13 to 18 & 20 to 23. Mr. Sourat Nandy … for the Private Respondent No.19. The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent no.2, being the District Magistrate and Collector, Purba Medinipur for ‘restoration of the plot Nos.67 and 124 to its original nature and character as its before the illegal construction work by the private respondents herein in accordance with Section 4C(5) and other applicable provisions of law and to take consequential steps for removal of unauthorised construction changing the nature and character of the plots in lis’. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are espousing the collective grievance of the local residents of Bagmari, Mangalpur, Ghantashola, Kulbudhi and adjoining villages concerning preservation of statutory water body. Mr. Mondal contends that the plot no.67 and plot no.124 are separate cadastral plots. The former plot stands recorded as ‘pukurpar’ and the latter plot stands recorded as ‘pukur’, as would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 27 to 30 to the PIL. He argues that without conversion of the nature and character of the land in plot no.67, permanent construction is being raised by the private respondents encroaching upon an adjacent plot of land being plot no.124 which is a waterbody. The failure of the authorities to distinguish between the two plots upon physical demarcation has allowed unauthorized filling under the guise of permitted development. Such illegal construction would disturb the ecosystem and would be prejudicial to all the residents of the concerned villages. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to the photographs annexed to the petition. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents no.13 to 18 and 20 to 23 2 denies the contention of Mr. Mondal and submits that the classification of the plot no.67 has already been changed on the basis of an order passed by the competent authority on 14th June, 2023. Upon such change of classification, an application was submitted towards approval of a plan for construction over the said plot of land. Such application was also sanctioned by the competent authority in the year 2024 and the concerned Panchayat has also granted permission to erect structures/buildings in the place covered under plot no.67. The copies of the said documents, as placed, be kept on record. Copies of the same have also been handed over to Mr. Mondal. Mr. Nandy, learned advocate enters appearance appearing on behalf of the private respondent no.19 and adopts the submissions of Mr. Lahiri and submits that no public interest is involved in the present petition. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State/respondents and denies the contention of the petitioners. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The primary contention of the petitioners is that without changing the classification of the plot 3 no.67, which has been recorded as ‘pukurpar’/bank of pond, no construction can be raised upon the same by the private respondents. Such contention stands negated in view of the order passed by the competent authority on 14th June, 2023. By the said order, permission was accorded towards alteration of the classification of the land at plot no.67 from ‘pukurpar’ to ‘bastu’. From the documents produced on behalf of the private respondents, it also appears that the competent authority has sanctioned the plan towards construction upon plot no.67 on 20th August, 2024. About two years thereafter, the petitioners have submitted representations seeking an enquiry in the month of April, 2026. In the said conspectus, we do not find that the present petition is aimed at redressal of any genuine public wrong or public injury. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant PIL. The PIL, being WPA (P) 403 of 2026 is, accordingly, dismissed. 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 of all requisite formalities. 4 (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 5