Dismissed

Md. Masaraf Laskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Dec 2022WPLRT/99/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an application for leave to file a writ petition challenging an order by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal did not direct a correction of the Record of Rights but an independent disposal with hearing, and the applicant was not an aggrieved person.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking leave to file writ petition dismissed; consequently, the writ petition dismissed.

Md. Masaraf Laskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

72 02.12. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA 2022 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side.

¶2

Ct. No. 04

¶3

¶4

WPLRT 99 of 2022 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

¶5

Md. Masaraf Laskar Vs. The State of West Bengal and others.

¶6

Mr. Syed Nasim Aejaj, Ms. Suman Rai. … for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Md. Hasanuz Zaman, Mr. Md. Zeeshanuz Zaman. … for the respondent no. 9.

¶8

Mr. Jaharlal Roy, Ms. Kabita Rani. … for the respondent nos. 10 & 11.

¶9

Re: CAN 1 of 2022.

¶10

This is an application seeking leave to file the instant writ petition challenging an order dated 3^rd February 2021 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA 3143 of 2019 as the Tribunal directed to record the name of the private respondents herein upon correcting the record of rights when the applicant herein have the substantial interest in respect of the subject property yet he was not impleaded as party thereto.

¶11

We peruse the impugned order and we do not find the manner in which the same has been understood and interpreted by the applicant to be correct.

¶12

Admittedly, the applicant was not a party to the said proceeding. By the impugned order, the tribunal application was disposed of directing the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Basanti, South 24-Parganas

¶13

¶14

to dispose of the said application with all its annexures to be treated as representation filed by the respondent no. 9 herein after giving an opportunity of hearing to all interested persons. The aforesaid direction can never be construed that the Tribunal directed the said authority to make a correction in the record of rights but a direction was passed upon the said authority to take an independent decision upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested persons.

¶15

The applicant claims to have a substantial interest in respect of the subject property and, therefore, we do not find any fetter on the part of the applicant in ventilating his grievance before the said authority.

¶16

We do not find that the applicant can be said to be aggrieved person to the order impugned before us and, therefore, the application seeking leave to file writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

Consequently, the writ petition is also dismissed.

¶18

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶19

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

Md. Masaraf Laskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Masaraf Laskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eastern Bank Limited Vs M/S Kse Electricals Private Limited and Ors.

Eastern Bank Limited Vs M/S Kse Electricals Private Limited and Ors.

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs M/S Maa Maihar Steel and Anr.

Ashima Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kumardeep Pyne Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Origami Cellulo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Machino Transport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.