Panchwati Holiday Resorts ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7073 Cal

25.   27.09.2022
      Ct. No.6
      Tanmoy
                                     W.P.L.R.T. 8 of 2020

                             Panchwati Holiday Resorts Limited
                                          -Versus-
                              The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                         (Assigned)



                        Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
                        Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Adv.,
                        Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.,
                        Mr. Arpan Guha, Adv.,
                        Mrs. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv.,
                        Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya, Adv.

                                            ...for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Adv.,
                        Mr. Subir Pal, Adv.

                                            ...for the State.



                        This writ petition is directed against a judgment

                   and order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy

                   Tribunal, passed on August 22, 2019, in O.A. No.

                   3207/2014 and O.A. No. 3208/2014. One original

                   application was filed by the present writ petitioner

                   company and the other was filed by Shyam Babu

                   Chowdhary who had purchased a plot of land adjacent

                   to the plot of land purchased by the present writ

                   petitioner.

                        The brief facts of the case are that the writ

                   petitioner had purchased a plot of land from the

                   erstwhile owner. The name of the writ petitioner was

                   mutated in the Record-of-Rights. However, the writ
                         2




petitioner found that the name of one Bipin Majhi was

recorded as the Bargadar. The writ petitioner made an

application before the concerned Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer (BL&LRO) under the provisions of the

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for removing the

name of the Bargadar since, according to the writ

petitioner, there was no Bargadar. Alleging inaction on

the part of the concerned BL&LRO, the writ petitioner

approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal

kept the matter pending and fixed a very long date for

hearing. Being aggrieved by that, the writ petitioner

approached this Court by filing W.P.L.R.T. 348 of 2014.

This Court called for a field note as also a report from

the BL&LRO. After considering the same, a co-ordinate

Bench held that the BL&LRO was of the view that there

was no sign of Bargadar in the concerned land and it

would be futile to remand the matter back to the learned

Tribunal for adjudication. The Bench itself directed the

BL&LRO to carry out necessary correction in the Record-

of-Rights by removing the name of the Bargadar.

    Such order of the Division Bench was carried to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of West Bengal by

filing a Special Leave Petition. By an order dated

February 11, 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

the High Court was not justified in deciding the matter

only on the basis of the Report of Amin. The appropriate
                              3




course would have been to send back the matter to the

learned Tribunal for adjudication on merits.

        Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside

the order of the High Court and remitted the matter

back to the learned Tribunal after giving direction for

exchange of pleadings.

        Upon such remand, the learned Tribunal has

passed the order dated August 22, 2019, dismissing the

original application of the present writ petitioner. Such

order is under challenge in this writ petition.

        We find from the records that pursuant to an order

of a co-ordinate Bench, the Officer-in-Charge, Jagacha

P.S.,     Howrah    Police       Commissionerate,     made    a

communication dated March 2, 2020 to the learned

Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta, which has

been      placed   on   record.     It   appears    from   such

communication and annexures thereto, that the named

Bargadar, Bipin Majhi has passed away. His son, Bhuto

Majhi, drives a Toto to earn his living. He has given a

written declaration in his own hand to this effect. Bhuto

Majhi has also been brought on record. However, he has

never appeared.

        We have heard Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned

Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, at

length. He contended that the learned Tribunal erred in

deciding the matter on merits. The simple grievance of

the writ petitioner before the learned Tribunal was
                               4




inaction on the part of the concerned BL&LRO. The

learned Tribunal should have sent back the matter to

the   BL&LRO      with   a    direction   to   dispose    of   the

application of the writ petitioner under Section 17 of the

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, within a specified

period of time, in accordance with law.

      Mr.    Susovan         Sengupta,    learned        Advocate

representing the State, says that once a Bargadar's

name is recorded in the Record-of-Rights, the Barga

does not get terminated automatically even after the

death of such Bargadar. It has to be terminated following

due process of law. Prior to termination of Barga,

transfer of the concerned land is impermissible as per

Section 15(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,

1955.

      We are not inclined to consider the submissions of

Mr. Sengupta on merits. We are of the view that the

learned Tribunal was not justified in taking up the

matter for disposal on merits. The learned Tribunal

ought to have sent the matter back to the concerned

BL&LRO      for   deciding    the   application   of     the   writ

petitioner under Section 17 of the West Bengal Land

Reforms Act, 1955.

      The order under challenge is set aside. We direct

the concerned BL&LRO to consider and dispose of the

writ petitioner's application under Section 17 of the West

Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, in accordance with law,
                              5




by passing a reasoned order, within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of communication of this order,

after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the writ

petitioner and all concerned parties. If the BL&LRO

allows   the        application    of   the         writ   petitioner,

consequential action will be taken by him.

     We have not gone into the merits of the case at all.

The BL&LRO will decide the application of the writ

petitioner without being influenced by any observation in

the order of the learned Tribunal which is impugned

before us or any observation in this order and in the

light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,

referred to above.

     Since     we     have   not   called     for     affidavits,   the

allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not

to have been admitted by the respondents.

The writ petition being W.P.L.R.T. 8 of 2020 is

accordingly disposed of. However, there will be no order

as to costs.

Let urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with all necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)