Amulya Ratan Biswas and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Apr 2024WPLRT/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Haat/Baazar Dakshin Dinajpur; West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal refusal of interim order; suo motu proceeding under Section 51A(4) West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953; revision of record of rights; opportunity of hearing and natural justice; plea of predetermined notion/eye-wash left open; liberty to seek interim order on 06.05.2024; writ petition disposed of, no costs; WPLRT 50 of 2024; Harish Tandon J. and Madhuresh Prasad J.; decision dated 04.04.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ-petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pray for interim order before the Tribunal on 06.05.2024; no order as to costs. ¶¶25

Amulya Ratan Biswas and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ-petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pray for interim order before the Tribunal on 06.05.2024; no order as to costs.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dated 18.03.2024 refusing to pass an interim order called for interference by the High Court at that stage. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere at this stage, since the Tribunal intended to decide the issue in the presence of State Counsel, kept the applications for interim relief alive for 06.05.2024, and would decide them by passing a reasoned order.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the petitioners to pray for an interim order before the Tribunal on the next date, i.e. 06.05.2024, and the Tribunal is expected to decide such prayer in accordance with law the moment it is made.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The Court expressly refrained from going into the contention that the suo motu proceeding was an eye-wash and farcical, for the reason that the Tribunal intended to decide the issue in the presence of State Counsel.obiter¶¶19
The Court observed that the notice issued in the suo motu proceeding gave the applicants an opportunity of hearing, from which adherence to the principles of natural justice was evident.obiter¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPLRT 50 of 2024) challenging the order dated 18.03.2024 of the Third Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal refusing an interim order in a matter concerning a 'Haat' in Dakshin Dinajpur, alleged to have vested in the State under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, pursuant to which a suo motu proceeding under Section 51A(4) was initiated for revision of the record of rights. Held: no interference called for at this stage, as the Tribunal kept the interim-relief applications alive for 06.05.2024 and would decide them by a reasoned order; liberty granted to the petitioners to renew the interim prayer on that date, to be decided in accordance with law; the contention that the suo motu proceeding was an eye-wash was left undecided; nothing observed to have persuasive effect before the Tribunal. Writ-petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

04.04.2024

¶2

THURSDAY

¶3

Court : 04 Item : 03 Matter : WPLRT Status : DO Bench ID : 266175 Transcriber : NANDY

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WPLRT 50 of 2024

¶6

Amulya Ratan Biswas & Ors. Vs.

¶7

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶8

Mr. Udaynarayan Betal, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Advocate Mr. Mriganka Patra, Advocate

¶9

……for the Petitioners

¶10

Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Supratim Dhar, Advocate Mr. Saikat Sen, Advocate

¶11

……for the State

¶12

The instant writ-petition arises from and order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Third Bench of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal refusing to pass an interim order as the Court feels that an opportunity should be given to the other side to disclose the stand.

¶13

Several pleas have been taken including the one that the Tribunal was consistently passing orders giving protection to the applicants approaching before it raising similar issues but the petitioners have been singled out.

¶14

The matter pertains to a ‘Haat’ situated in Dakshin Dinajpur. Public Interest Litigation was filed which culminated into an order that the authorities shall take steps against any illegal constructions having effected in respect of the ‘Haat/Baazar’ which appears to have been vested upon the State under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.

¶15

¶16

Pursuant to the same, a notice is issued upon initiating suo motu proceeding under Section 51A(4) of the said Act for revision of the record of rights where the ‘Haat’ or the individual holders’ names were appearing therein. The said notice indicates that an opportunity of hearing is given to the applicants so that the authority before proceeding to take a final decision must afford an opportunity of hearing. Obviously, the adherence to the principles of natural justice can be seen from the said notice.

¶17

However, Counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the initiation of the suo motu proceeding is a mere eye-wash and farcical as the authorities have proceeded with a predetermined notion which would further be evident from the notice issued to all the Block Land and Land Reforms Officers.

¶18

The petitioners have approached at the stage of a notice inviting them to appear and disclose the stand and, therefore, it is preposterous to suggest that the authority who is a quasi judicial authority would pass an order which appears to be contrary to law.

¶19

Anyhow, we do not intend to go into the aforesaid aspect for the simple reason that the Tribunal intended to decide the issue in presence of the State Counsel and have, in fact, kept the applications for interim relief alive to be taken on 06.05.2024.

¶20

We thus do not find that the Tribunal would not consider the prayer for interim order, if raised on

¶21

¶22

the said date and decide the same by passing a reasoned order and, therefore, we feel that no interference is called at this stage.

¶23

However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to pray for interim order before the Tribunal on the next date i.e. 06.05.2024 and it is expected that the moment such prayer is made, the Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶24

Nothing observed hereinabove, shall have any persuasive effect on the matter pending before the Tribunal.

¶25

With these observations, the writ-petition being WPLRT 50 of 2024 is disposed of . No order as to costs.

¶26

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶27

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

Amulya Ratan Biswas and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amulya Ratan Biswas and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabita Das and Anr. Vs Dibakar Manna and Ors.

Rabindra Nath Dolai and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Afjal Khan Alias Afjal Rahaman Khan Being Rep. by Firoz Khan Vs Abdul Alam Khan

Lal Mohan Paik Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Krishna Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Amit MONDAl Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.