03.09.2026 rpan/02 WPA (P) 409 of 2026 Alauddin Mondal & Others - Versus - State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Samim Ahmed, Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Mr. Danisuddin Abbasi, Ms. Reshma Khatun … for the Petitioners. Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Mr. Subit Majumdar, Ms. Megha Sarkar … for the State/Respondents. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the residents of Tengaberia, Jaurgram Gram Panchayat and the petitioner no.7 is the Secretary of the Committee of Mutawali of the Tengaberia Kabarastan Auqaf Estate. They have filed the Pubic Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) seeking enforcement of the statutory and public duties of the respondent authorities to implement a Government sanctioned project for construction of a boundary wall surrounding Tengaberia Kabarastan (graveyard) at Mouza Dogachia, District – Purba Bardhaman. He argues that the graveyard is a longstanding public Muslim burial ground which has been enrolled as a Auqaf Estate by the Board of Auqaf and is under the management of the Committee Mutawalli. Following verification by the revenue authorities certifying the land as a graveyard, the State Government sanctioned a fund amount of Rs.30,64,887/- under the Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department. Subsequent thereto, the concerned Block Development Officer issued a work order on 12th July, 2024 pertaining to ‘CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL WITH GATE AND MURRUN SHED AT TANGABERIA MUSLIM PAARA GRAVEYARD, JL NO-105, MOUZA – DOGACHIA, PLOT NO.-446, KHATINA NO.-175 UNDER JAUGRAM GP OF JAMALPUR DEV BLOCK’. On the basis of the said work order, part of the boundary wall was constructed, as would be explicit from the photographs annexed to the writ petition. Without any reason, however, the boundary wall was not completed and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted several representations but the same were not responded to. Placing reliance upon the revised guidelines of the Scheme for Protection of Public Graveyards/Mosque/Idgah/Mazar, used by the minority community, contained in a memo dated 7th December, 2009, Mr. Ahmed contends that it would be explicit from the provisions therein that only after the competent authority arrives at a finding that the 2 land in question is a graveyard and after a certificate to that effect is issued by the concerned BL & LRO / BDO / District Officer (Minority Affairs) / SDO, the scheme is recommended by the concerned District Magistrate. The sequence of facts would reveal that such scheme was recommended by the competent authority and only thereafter, the fund was sanctioned and tender was floated. But, surprisingly the work was not completed in spite of issuance of work order to that effect. Such inaction on the part of the State authorities to implement the work has given rise to serious ramifications inasmuch as the non segregation of the defined portion as a graveyard upon encircling the same by a boundary wall is creating conflict amongst the communities and is giving rise to law and order problems. In the said conspectus, it cannot be ruled out that the present PIL has been preferred for redressal of a public grievance. Mr. Ahmed further contends that even if there is a pending title suit pertaining to a purported dispute as regards ownership of the land in question, the mere filing of the said title suit cannot prevent the State authorities from implementing the project which it had recommended and sanctioned on the rudiments of appropriate recommendation and 3 approval/sanction obtained from the competent authority as detailed in the revised guidelines. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Ahmed and submits that there is a serious dispute as regards ownership and possession of the land in question which has been urged to be a graveyard and the issue in the present PIL is being highlighted by Mutawalli who is involved in the title suit, being Title Suit no.602 of 2024 before the jurisdictional Court. Such fact would be explicit since the petitioner no.7 herein himself along with others filed an application for addition of party in the said title suit and upon contested hearing the said application was allowed by the jurisdictional court by an order dated 9th April, 2025. He further submits that pertaining to the alleged disputes that had occasioned pertaining to the land in question one Smt. Laxmi Mandi, wife of Mangal Mandi of Tengaberia, Police Station – Jamalpur, Dist. – Purba Bardhaman and four others have preferred a writ petition, being WPA 6858 of 2025 in which the petitioner no.7 also happens to be the respondent no.8 in the said writ petition. Such fact has not been disclosed in the present PIL. 4 He contends that a purported implementation of a scheme may not be sacrosanct in the event if it is found that there exists a genuine grievance of the people in the locality pertaining to the nature, classification and user of the concerned plot of land and that as such, it may not be construed such a project has to be brought to its logical conclusion and necessary direction to that effect can be sought for from this Court by preferring a PIL that too by a party, who is a party in the pending suit. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, in the instant case there is a dispute as regards the ownership, possession and user of a particular plot of land. Pertaining to the concerned plot of land a title suit no.602 of 2024 is pending. In the present PIL it has not even been disclosed that disputes pertaining to the plot in question are also the subject matter of a writ petition, being WPA 6858 of 2025 which is presently pending before this Court. It has also not been disclosed that the petitioner no.7 herein has been impleaded as a respondent in the said writ petition. In the said conspectus, it cannot be ruled out that the dispute urged in the present PIL by the petitioner no.7 herein, who has come before this Court accompanied by certain others persons 5 claiming to be the alleged residents of the locality, involves private interest. A PIL is preferred for redressing a public grievance. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury. The redressal sought for needs to be a genuine public wrong and not a right of individuals. A public wrong refers to an act or omission that violates laws designed to safeguard the society at large rather than just an individual right. A PIL must be aimed at redressing genuine public injury or systemic harm rather than private grudges. Applying the proposition of law to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the present PIL and the same 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. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6