Allowed

Anil Singh Sardar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Sept 2024WPLRT/109/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the order dismissing the Original Application (OA) which challenged the non-compliance by the BL & LRO of a Tribunal order directing them to decide a petition treated as a representation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27 June 2024 in OA 2073 of 2023 set aside; BL & LRO directed to decide representation commensurately with order dated 20 March 2002 and communicate it within 12 weeks.

Anil Singh Sardar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and… — Landlord and Tenant | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

21 13.09.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

¶2

WPLRT 109 of 2024

¶3

Anil Singh Sardar & Anr. –Versus –

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Tara Pada Das Mr. Puspam Das

¶6

…..For the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Supratim Dhar …..For the State/Respondents.

¶8

The present writ petition has been instituted to challenge the order dated 27^th June, 2004 passed in OA 2073 of 2023.

¶9

Mr. Das, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, seeks to explain the background facts leading to this writ petition by contending that during the R.S. operation, the predecessor-in-interest retained the lands in question by submitting a 'B' form. However, despite this retention, the lands were erroneously declared to have vested in the State and were subsequently settled to third parties by issuing pattas.

¶10

He submits that in 1984, challenging these actions, the petitioners filed a writ petition, which was ultimately registered as CR 9694 (W) of 1984. However, after the establishment of the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as TA 15 of 2002. The TA was disposed of by an order dated 20th March 2002, which direted the concerned BL & LRO to treat

¶11

¶12

the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a specified time frame.

¶13

Mr. Das contends that despite receiving several reminders, the order dated 20^th March, 2002 has not been complied with. This prompted the petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal again with another OA, being OA 2073 of 2023.

¶14

He contends that even during the hearing of this OA, a status report was called for from the BL & LRO. However, without addressing the issues raised by the petitioners, the OA was dismissed by the order under challenge in this writ petition. He submits that a direction should be given to the BL & LRO to dispose of the petitioners’ representation in compliance with the order dated 20th March 2002.

¶15

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents, vehemently opposes the contentions canvassed by Mr. Das. He argues that based on the 'B' form submitted by the predecessor of the present petitioner on 4th July 1968, certain amounts of land were vested. Thereafter, it was detected that there were some mala fide transfers to evade the ceiling, and accordingly, a proceedings under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, were initiated and a fresh vesting order passed on 13th July 1971. He contends that following this fresh vesting order, the subject lands were declared vested in the State. He submits that those land have already settled to third party by issuing Pattas.

¶16

Heard the learned advocate appearing for respective parties, perused the materials on record.

¶17

¶18

Admittedly, by an order dated 20th March 2002, the learned Tribunal directed the BL & LRO to treat the writ petition as a representation and to dispose of the same. It is also an admitted fact that, despite several reminders, the BL & LRO has not disposed of the writ petition treating it as a representation in compliance with the order dated 20th March 2002. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the order dated 20th March 2002 has not been challenged by the BL & LRO or any State functionary in any higher forum.

¶19

We cannot allow an order passed by a competent judicial institution to be frustrated by any administrative body, such as the B.L. & L.R.O. Regardless of the status of the lands, the B.L. & L.R.O. should have issued a reasoned decision on the representation and communicated this decision to the petitioners. The learned Tribunal erred in not taking this aspect into account and in dismissing the OA.

¶20

In view thereof, the order dated June 27, 2024, passed in OA 2073 of 2023, is set aside. The present writ petition is disposed of, directing the BL & LRO to take a decision on the representation in terms of the order dated March 20, 2002, passed in TA 15 of 2002, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with a copy of the writ petition being C.R. 9694 (W) of 1984, which was subsequently renumbered as TA 15 of 2002. The petitioners are directed to communicate this order along with a copy of the writ petition immediately.

¶21

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶22

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible

¶23

¶24

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)

Anil Singh Sardar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh Sardar and Anr. 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

Sk. Kader Ali and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Samiran Bera and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dr. Radharani Dasgupta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Secretary and Controller of Examinations, West Bengal Health Recruitment Board Vs Dip Sarkar and Ors.

Anirban Ganguly Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.