Public Interest Litigations cannot be utilized by individuals with personal interests, as they lack the necessary standing to join proceedings framed under public benefit considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The writ petitioners are running a hotel on the disputed plot. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the private respondents, claiming to be public spirited persons and inhabitants of the locality, seeking an earlier logical conclusion to the penal proceedings which had been undertaken under Section 4C (4D) of the WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT , 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”) for alleged illegal conversion of several plots, including the plot-in-question.

2. The said Public Interest Litigation was initially disposed of by directing the concerned authority, that is, the BL&LRO, to conclude the proceedings within a limited period. Subsequently, at the behest of the present writ petitioners, the said order was reviewed, thereby carving out a niche of opportunity for the present writ petitioners, to be given opportunity of hearing before such conclusion.

3. Thereafter, the concerned authority disposed of the proceeding upon recording an observation that there was illegal conversion of the disputed plot of land by the writ petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that the concerned authority, while passing such order, did not take into consideration the provision of Rule 166 of the WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS MANUAL , 1991, which categorically provides that if the land was converted before March 24, 1986, such conversion could be regularized subsequently.

5. That apart, the documents produced by the writ petitioners before the concerned authority, it is alleged, were not considered while passing the order-in-question.

6. Being thus aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed an Original Application, bearing OA No. 61 of 2024 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which is still pending.

7. During pendency of the same, proceedings were initiated and orders were passed by the authorities for demolition of the constructions made by the writ petitioners on the property-in-question, which was challenged by way of a writ petition, unsuccessfully. The said order of the writ court was affirmed in an appeal, challenging which, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred by the writ petitioners, which culminated in an order of status quo being passed till disposal of the Original Application, along with a direction on the learned Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application on merits within a period of six months.

8. Thereafter, an interlocutory application, bearing MA No. 1619 of 2024, was filed by the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 herein, apparently captioned under Section 16(d) of the WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT , 1997.

9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that the said provision is one for review and is not applicable to an application which is substantially for addition of the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 as parties to the Original Application.

10. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in allowing such application, thereby directing the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to be impleaded, inter alia on the premise that the writ petitioners are in occupation of a portion of the subject land.

11. It is argued that the said stand is contrary to the one taken by them in the Public Interest Litigation.

12. It is also argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that subsequently other Public Interest Litigations were filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7, which were mostly withdrawn by them in view of the contrary stand taken before the Tribunal as to them having personal interest in the property, in order to obviate any adverse order being passed in the Public Interest Litigations.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 controverts that the subsequent writ petitions were withdrawn to suppress anything. It is submitted that such withdrawal was in view of the pendency of the challenge before the Supreme Court.

14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners pl