28.08.2026 Item No.15 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 400 of 2026 Subhas Chalak & Ors. - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Snehasis Jana Ms. Anulekha Bera Maiti Ms. Tutun Das …. For the petitioners Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Ld. A.G. Mr. Samrat Mukherjee Mr. Sailendra Kr. Tiwari Ms. Ritu Das …. For the respondent nos.1 to 10 Mr. M. K. Maity Mr. S. Bhattacharya …. For the respondent no.11 Mr. R. Mahato Mr. A. S. Ray …. For the respondent nos.12 to 14 & 16 to 21 Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents ‘to conduct a thorough investigation into the dubious registered deeds by which the Government land has been transferred which were registered from the office the ADSR – Sadar Midnapore by mispersonification and the records in the office of the BL & LRO – Midnapore has been manipulated, is undertaken by the highest officer of the Paschim Medinipur District or by any State agency, so that the culprit is identified and action taken accordingly against such misdeeds’. 2 Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the social workers and are espousing the cause of the inhabitants of the locality. The land detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition was lying vacant for a considerable period of time. No one appeared and claimed to be the owner of the said land. Suddenly, one Bijay Krishna Basu claimed himself to be the owner of the said land and executed nine separate registered deeds in favour of the respondent nos.12 to 20 on 17th April, 2014 and the same were registered on 22nd April, 2014. The respondent nos.12, 13, 15 and 17 thereafter gave a power of attorney to one Sanatan Roy to sell their properties. On the basis of the same, several deeds were executed thereafter as detailed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. Mr. Sanyal further contends that the land is being transferred fraudulently by the private respondents with some unscrupulous employees of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Midnapore. Such fraudulent transfers were, thereafter, brought to the notice of the competent authority by submitting a detailed representation on 15th May, 2026. The State authorities, however, maintained a deceptive silence and avoided to discharge their statutory obligations. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3 He argues that as per the provisions of the West Bengal Escheats and Forfeiture Act, 2012 properties having no rightful owner is to be taken over by the Government by escheat or lapse. Such authority has not been exercised in respect of the land detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate General appearing for the State authorities submits that no public element is involved in the present matter as the dispute pertains to sale of plots of land and as regards validity of the deeds executed by different persons. Such a dispute involves private interest and as such the present writ petition is not, even, maintainable. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent no.11 and Mr. Mahato, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent nos.12 to 14 and 16 to 21 and denies the contention of Mr. Sanyal and submits that this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry and issue directions towards investigation pertaining to the registered deeds alleged to be dubious. In reply, Mr. Sanyal submits that only after the issue was urged by submitting representations, the respondent no.7 issued notices as per the provisions of the WBLR Act to various individuals and the representation submitted by the petitioners herein responded to by the respondent no.7 vide memo dated 24th August, 2026. 4 Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the memo dated 24th August, 2026 issued by the respondent no.7 it has been stated inter alia that upon receipt of the representation, steps were taken to verify the authenticity of the deeds and it was found that the same are genuine and that in view thereof, the State respondents cannot directed to revert the subject plot of land to its previous position. Public Interest Litigation is preferred for redressing a public grievance. It does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the constitution to the executive and the legislature. It should be aimed it redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury. In the instant case, it appears that the right sought to be established is the right of individuals. Applying such proposition to the facts of this case, we are unable to grant the relief, as prayed, for in the present PIL. Accordingly, the PIL being WPA (P) 400 of 2026 is 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 with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)