Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5667 Cal
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2021
15.11.2021
Item No.04
Court No.04
Krishnendu
Dismissed
W.P.L.R.T. 46 of 2021
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
filed on 29.09.2021;
And
In re: Suvra Halder
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh
For the Petitioner
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui
For the State Respondents
Mr. Anjan Dutta For the Pvt. Respondents
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter
alia an order dated 8th September, 2021 passed by the learned
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench in
O.A. 1707 of 2021 (L.R.T.T.).
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the learned Tribunal as the Court of first instance
ought to have entertained the Original Application since the
petitioner would suffer undue hardship in pursuing the remedial
measures available under the specified Act. The petitioner is
pursuing her claim since 2016 and due to the illegalities
perpetrated, she had to approach the learned Civil Court by filing
a title suit, being T.S. No. 47 of 2016, which was ultimately
disposed of in favour of the petitioner by a judgment and decree
dated 6th October, 2020. In spite of the said judgment, the
petitioner's name was not incorporated in the record of rights.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the respondent no.
2, who passed an order on 2 nd July, 2021. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal.
According to Mr. Ghosh the learned Tribunal ought to have
entertained the application since section 10(3)(b) of the West
Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1999 provides
that the application can be entertained considering the undue
hardship suffered by the petitioner. Such denial on the part of the
learned Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction warrants interference of
this Court. In support of such contention, Mr. Ghosh has placed
reliance upon two judgments, one delivered in the case of Siba
Prasad Sahoo - Vs- State of West Bengal, reported in 2004(1)
CHN 162 and the other in the case of Sri Bidyapati Pal - Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2016(4) CHN 127.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing for the State
respondents submits that the facts and circumstances of the
present case are similar to that in the case of Abu Bakkar Mondal
& Ors. - Vs- The State of State of West Bengal & Ors. wherein
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that the petitioners therein
ought to have availed the statutory remedy in stead of
approaching the learned Tribunal.
Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the private
respondents denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the materials on record and also the
averments made by the petitioner in the Original Application.
We do not find appropriate pleadings to the effect that the
remedial measures under the provisions of the specified Act are
inadequate or that the petitioner would suffer undue hardship in
pursuing such remedial measures. The facts involved in the case
of Abu Bakkar Mondal (supra) are similar to the facts of the
present case and judicial propriety demands that the finding
arrived at on the rudiments of similar facts by another Court
should be given respect and should be followed.
In the said conspectus, we do not find any error in the
order impugned warranting interference of this Court and the writ
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!