Petitioner sought equitable order for demolition of construction. Court dismissed writ petition since service upon respondent no.8 could not be effected for Bench-II, preventing proper adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
17.12.2021
Court : 04 Item : 45 Matter : WPLRT Status : DISMISSED Transcriber: nandy
WPLRT 66 of 2021
Gokul Bera Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. M.A. Samad, Advocate Ms. Nayaab Molla, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
Mr. Chandi Charan De, Advocate Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. N. Chatterjee, Advocate
……for the State
The instant writ-petition has been taken out for a direction upon the Tribunal to pass an immediate order of demolition of the construction undertaken by the private respondents in gross violation of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Tribunal was approached alleging inaction on the part of the competent authority in not addressing such point raised in the tribunal application filed by the petitioner.
It appears from the order recorded in the said tribunal application that service upon the respondent no. 8 could not be effected. Since the matter relates to Bench-II of the Tribunal, the Principal Bench after noticing such non-service, relegated the matter to the said Bench as the service of the copy of the application and notice is a vital and important facet of dispensation of justice. In an adversarial litigation the Tribunal or the Court should be slow and circumspect in passing an ex parte order without satisfying itself that the service has been effected upon the respondents. Even a person should not be penalized
2
or suffer the adverse order without getting an opportunity to contest the same.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner has attempted to get away with the same and filed the instant writ-petition seeking a blessing of this Court to fix a timeline within which the entire proceeding, pending before the Tribunal, should be disposed of.
Since the service has not been effected upon the respondent no. 8, we do not find that it would be proper and appropriate to pass any direction upon the Tribunal to proceed with the tribunal application ignoring the non-service upon the respondent no. 8 against whom serious allegation has been made in the tribunal application.
The writ-petition being WPLRT 66 of 2021 is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should be directed to proceed with an application where service upon a respondent could not be effected.
Gokul Bera
The State of West Bengal
Harish Tandon
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
