Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Matter : Wplrt vs Status : Disposed Of on 13 January, 2022
13.01.2022 WPLRT 82 of 2021
Court : 04 Surya Kumar Das
Item : 55
Matter : WPLRT Vs.
Status : DISPOSED OF
Transcriber: nandy The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo, Advocate
Mr. Tamal Taru Panda, Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr. Santimay Bhattacharya, Advocate
......for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6
On the basis of the application taken out by the
private respondent for correction of the record of
rights in respect of the plots mentioned therein, the
proceeding was registered as Miscellaneous Case
No. 49 of 2015 before the Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Khejuri-II. Ultimately, the said
proceeding ended in dismissal on August 25, 2015
and an appeal under Section 55 of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act, 1955 was filed before the
appellate forum which gave rise to Appeal Case No.
165(T) of 2015.
The appellate authority ultimately dismissed the
appeal, which is challenged by the private
respondent by filing the Original Application 2776 of
2016 before the West Bengal Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal. The matter was taken up on
divergent dates and ultimately by the impugned order
dated April 8, 2019, The Tribunal remanded the
matter with a direction upon the appellate authority to
dispose of the same within a timeframe.
The writ-petitioner challenged the said order in
the instant writ-petition primarily on two counts.
Firstly, the scope of the original application filed by
the private respondent had been enlarged by the
Tribunal by including the plots owned by him which
were conspicuously absent in the original application.
Secondly, on the date so fixed, the writ-petitioner
was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing
before the Tribunal and, therefore, reasonable
opportunity of hearing was not extended to him.
So far as the first point is concerned we do not
intend to go into such aspect for the reasons that if
the contention of the petitioner is correct that he was
prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing on the
said date the remedy can be exhausted by
approaching the Tribunal for substantive relief.
Furthermore, the petitioner submits that he was
prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing on the
date when the hearing was concluded and the
judgment was reserved.
It is open to him to approach the Tribunal for
recalling an order establishing the cause, which is
reasonable, plausible and sufficient. The right to
recall the order is reserved on the writ-petitioner and
the Tribunal also possess the power to recall the
same provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the
petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not
appearing on the said date such right has be to
exhausted first before moving the High Court for
judicial review.
Since the petitioner has an alternative
efficacious remedy by way of filing an application for
recalling the impugned order, we refuse to exercise
the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The writ-petition being WPLRT 82 of 2021 is
thus disposed of.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach
the Tribunal with the substantive application for
recalling the impugned order within a week from date
and if such application is taken out, the Tribunal shall
dispose of the same within a month therefrom after
affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested
parties and in accordance with law.
For abundant caution, it is hereby made clear
that the point which touches upon the merit of the
application filed by the private respondent shall not
be deemed to have been decided by us and it shall
be open to the competent authority to deal with the
same on merit.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
