1 ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0488542026 Item No.6 Ct. No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. (P) 467 of 2026 Najibul Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Appearance: Mr. R. Bhattacharjee Mr. K. Chowdhury Mr. D. Panda …..Advocate for Petitioner Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. A. Kr. Mishra, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. I. Pal …..Advocate for State CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CHIEF JUSTICE & OM NARAYAN RAI J. Date: 28.09.2026 Order (Per Court) 1. The Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.8/Shaera Bibi @ Chayara Bibi w/o Manaf Mondal, has been granted land, which is commonly 2 known as a ‘Patta’, by the Revenue Authorities, despite her husband having land. 2. We called upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner to show us a single document, which will indicate that the husband of Respondent No.8 or herself, has a private land and would not be eligible for a Government Patta. We also called upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner to state as to whether he has moved an application under the Right to Information Act for seeking better details about the lands allegedly standing in the name of the husband of Respondent No.8. The answer to both the queries, was in the negative. 3. A PIL containing allegations, without substantiation or relevant data, ought not to be entertained merely because the Petitioner has made allegations against Respondent No.8. Such allegations cannot be presumed to be true only because a PIL Petition has been filed. The PIL Petitioner has to carry out research, collect sufficient documents, support his allegations and make out a case for convincing the Court that a public cause is involved. 4. There is another angle to this case. Respondent No.8 herein had preferred Writ Petition No.19767 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge 3 Bench. Respondent No.4 in the said Petition is Najibul Mondal s/o Rahimuddin Mondal. The address in that Petition is identical to the address of the present Petitioner before us, who name is Najibul Sarkar s/o Rahimuddin Sarkar. 5. In the Petition before the Learned Single Judge, it appears that the said Petitioner’s possession of land was in dispute. The present Petitioner, before us is Respondent no. 4 in the said proceedings. Before us, the Petitioner has used the name Najibul Sarkar s/o Rahimuddin Sarkar whereas in the petition before the Single Judge Bench, he has been described as Najibul Mondal s/o Rahimuddin Mondal. 6. In view of the above, noticing that the Petitioner does not have documentary evidence to be shown to us, inasmuch as, the possession of the Respondent No.8/Shaera Bibi @ Chayara Bibi being the subject-matter of dispute, this PIL Petition cannot be said to be in public interest. In these circumstances, the filing of this PIL Petition amounts to a chance case. The Petitioner has tried to take a chance before this Court by styling this petition as a PIL. 4 7. This PIL Petition sans merit and is dismissed. We are, therefore, imposing cost of Rs.50,000/-. The learned advocate for the Petitioner prays that the cost amount may be reduced. We are, therefore, reducing the cost to Rs.25,000/-. which the present Petitioner shall deposit in this Court within 45 days from today, failing which, the District Collector shall initiate proceedings for recovering the said amount, as arrears of land revenue and and deposit the same in this Court, on or before 31/12/2026. 8. List this dismissed PIL Petition before this Court on 20/11/2026, for recording compliance of this order, in the urgent supplementary list. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice