Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyam Babu Chowdhary vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2022
26. 27.09.2022
Ct. No.6
Tanmoy
W.P.L.R.T. 9 of 2020
Shyam Babu Chowdhary
-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. Chandi Charan De, Ld. A.G.P.,
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, 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 and
the other was filed by a private limited company
controlled by him which 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. 347 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. Chandi Charan De, learned Additional
Government Pleader 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. De 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,
by passing a reasoned order, within a period of twelve
5
(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. 9 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.)
