Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

In Re: Suvra Halder vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5667 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5667 Cal
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Suvra Halder vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 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.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter