(Ad) Sri Narayan Banerjee Alias ... vs Block Land And Land Reforms ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6675 Cal

DL-13
                                  WPLRT 193 of 2015
03.10.2023
Court No.5
(AD)          Sri Narayan Banerjee alias Narayan Chandra Banerjee
                                       Vs.
                   Block Land and Land Reforms Officer & Ors.


                   Mr. Bhabani Prasad Mondal
                   Mr. Sukanta Mondal
                                                    ... for the petitioner.

                   Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld. AGP
                   Mr. Supratim Dhar
                                           ... for the State-respondents.

The writ petition is directed against an order dated

November 19, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Land

Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A-893/2012 (LRTT).

By the impugned order, the Tribunal found that,

the application for mutation made by the writ petitioner

was disposed of by concerned Block Land & Land

Reforms Officer on May 19, 2010. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the

original application.

Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner

submits that, the order of the concerned Block Land &

Land Reforms Officer is non-speaking. It does not decide

the application for mutation. Certified copy of the order

dated May 19, 2010 of the concerned Block Land & Land

Reforms Officer does not specify as to whether the

application for mutation was allowed or rejected. No

reason was also ascribed. He refers to the relief sought

for in the original application. He submits that, the

Tribunal instead of considering and deciding the request

for mutation, on merits, proceeded to dispose of the

original application on the basis of non-speaking order of

the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer dated

May 19, 2010. He further submits that, the writ

petitioner did not ask for any liberty to prefer any appeal

from the order of the concerned Block Land & Land

Reforms Officer and that, the recording in the impugned

order to such extent is erroneous.

State is represented.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits

that, the order dated May 19, 2010 passed by the

concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer on the

face of it, does not show the fate of the application for

mutation.

It is trite law that, the Tribunal must decide the

issues raised before it and not remit the matter to the

authorities for consideration.

In the facts of the present case, the writ petitioner

approached the Tribunal with a prayer for disposal of an

application for mutation. The writ petitioner claims right

to mutation on the basis of Civil Court's judgment and

decree.

The concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer

apparently passed an order dated May 19, 2010 on the

application for mutation. Certified copy of such order

does not show the fate of the application for mutation

that is to say whether such application for mutation was

allowed or rejected.

In such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in

noting the order of the concerned Block Land & Land

Reforms Officer dated May 19, 2010 and dispose of the

original application on such basis.

We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the

impugned order of the Tribunal dated November 19,

2014 and request the Tribunal to hear and decide the

original application on merits.

The order of the concerned Block Land & Land

Reforms Officer dated May 19, 2010 being non-speaking

and on the face of it not disclosing the fate of the

application for mutation, is quashed, as nullity.

The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the original

application, preferably within a period of four months

from the date of communication of this order.

WPLRT 193 of 2015 is disposed of without any

order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)