Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Since Deceased) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 September, 2024
16
26.09.2024
Ct. No. 11
rrc
WPLRT 40 of 2024
[Snehabala Kar (Legal heirs of Narayan Chandra Kar
since deceased) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]
Mr. Gouranga Kr. Das
Ms. Poulami Dutta
.... For the petitioner
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
...... For the State respondents
Ms. Sarmistha Ghosh Sarma
...... For the respondent nos. 5 & 6 (Via v/c)
The present writ petition has been instituted challenging
the order dated 4th January, 2024 passed in the Original
Application (in short, OA), being OA 3571 of 2023.
Mr. Das, learned advocate representing the petitioner,
submits that a plot of land recorded in C.S.R-O-R as plot No.
1007, comprising an area of 165 acres, belonged to one Nemai
Charan Pradhan, who, by executing a deed of gift, conveyed the
plot of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the present
petitioners, namely, Narayan Ch. Kar, since deceased.
During the RS operation, the said plot of land was split into
two plots, namely, RS plot No. 1508 and RS plot No. 1509,
comprising areas of 26 decimals and 139 decimals, respectively.
Thereafter, by executing a deed, Mr. Kar sold 8 decimals of plot
No. 1508 and 46 decimals of plot No. 1509.
After the publication of the final LR Record of Rights, it was
found that similar numbers for those two plots were maintained
in the LR Record of Rights, but in the names of private
respondent nos. 4 and 5, 9(nine) dec. each were recorded in
respect of plot No. 1508, whereas for plot No. 1509, 25(twenty-
five) decimals, 46(forty-six) decimals, and 21(twenty-one)
decimals were recorded in the names of private respondents
nos. 4, 5, and one Ranjit Kar, respectively. Only 1(one) decimal
of land from plot No. 1509 was recorded in the name of Mr. Kar,
and no land was recorded in his name in respect of plot No.
1508.
Given the situation, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 27.09.2023 before the concerned
BL&LRO, requesting rectification of the Record of Rights of
both the plots. However, since despite the receipt of this
representation, it was not attended to, the petitioner was
compelled to approach the learned Tribunal with OA 3571 of
2023.
He submits that, meanwhile, Mr. Ranjit Kar filed a partition
suit Title Suit No. 203 of 2023, seeking partition and separate
possession of plot No. 1509. He also submits that, taking note of
this fact, the learned Tribunal directed the BL&LRO to correct
the Record of Rights for plot No. 1508 but refused to give any
such direction regarding plot No. 1509.
He apprehends that the partition suit, along with any appeal
that may be filed against the final judgment and decree passed
in the partition suit, may remain pending for years. He submits
that during this period, if the rectification of the L.R. R-O-R for
plot no. 1509, as requested by the petitioners, is not carried out,
the petitioners would be highly prejudiced. In contrast, if the R-
O-R is corrected based on the petitioners' representation during
the pendency of the suit, there would be no prejudice to the
private respondents.
Ms. Ghosh Sarma, learned advocate appearing for the
private respondent nos. 5 and 6 in virtual mode, contends that
in the partition suit, the plaintiff not only prayed for partition
and separate possession but also sought a declaration of title.
Therefore, according to her, it would not be proper to give any
direction to alter the entry in the Record of Rights during the
pendency of the partition suit.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of
the State respondents.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Perused the materials on record.
Admittedly, there is a partition suit concerning plot no.
1509, and as claimed by the private respondents, the suit was
instituted for partition, separate possession, and a decree of
declaration of title as well. In the suit, Mr. Kar, now deceased,
was made a party. Therefore, to avoid any complication, the
petitioners must be substituted in place of Mr. Kar. It is
expected that the title of the petitioners in respect of plot no.
1509 will also be determined in the suit along with other parties
thereto. As such, unless the title of the parties in the suit is
determined, it would be inequitable to direct the BL&LRO to
alter the entries in the L.R. R-O-R for plot no. 1509.
Thus, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has
rightly issued a direction to the BL&LRO to consider the
petitioner's claim for rectification of the Record of Rights for
plot no. 1508 and correctly refused to issue any direction to
alter the entry in the Record of Rights for plot no. 1509 during
the pendency of the partition suit.
We do not find any infirmity, substantial miscarriage of
justice, or error, let alone any jurisdictional or patent error in
the impugned order. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
As the writ petition has been dismissed without calling for
any affidavit from the respondents, the allegations made in the
writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied.
All parties shall act on the service copies of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
