Disposed¶15

Ramani Chandra Baidya v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 Apr 2025WPA/7267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of without entertaining the sought relief, with time-period condonation/extension offered should the petitioner file an appeal under Section 54 of the Act. ¶15

Ramani Chandra Baidya Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the relief sought in the writ petition — consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2025 regarding wrong classification in the record-of-rights mutation and non-mutation of certain transferred lands — ought to be entertained, despite the availability of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

For all the petitioner's aspects of grievance (discrepancy in plot numbers or nature of classification of land, and non-mutation of some lands transferred in his favour), the remedy lies in preferring an appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Any order passed under Chapter VII A of the Act is an appealable order; an appeal shall lie against such an order under Section 54 of the said Act.

¶11

Key takeaways

Statutory scheme recorded: Chapter VII A deals with preparation and revision of the record of rights; Section 50B with modification of the record of rights; Section 51 with revision and preparation of the record of rights; and Sections 51B and 51BB empower the revenue officer to revise or correct an entry in the record of right even before or after final publication.ratio¶10
In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the relief sought in the writ petition ought not to be entertained.ratio¶14
Since the petitioner approached this Court instead of filing an appeal, the period exhausted for filing the writ petition and for its disposal is condoned and extended if he files an appeal under Section 54 of the said Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPA 7267 of 2025 (disposed 21.04.2025, Partha Sarathi Sen, J.): Petitioner, claiming absolute ownership under a Government deed of conveyance subject to a time-limited bar on transfer (¶¶3–4), complained that respondent no. 5 mutated some of his lands with a wrong classification and failed to mutate other transferred lands, and that his representation dated 18.02.2025 went unaddressed (¶¶5–6, 12). Examining Chapters VII A and IX of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (including Sections 50B, 51, 51B, 51BB), the Court found that any order under Chapter VII A is appealable under Section 54 (¶¶10–11) and held that the petitioner's remedy for all his grievances lies in preferring such an appeal; the relief sought in the writ petition was accordingly not entertained, with the time exhausted for filing and disposal condoned and extended if an appeal under Section 54 is filed (¶¶13–14). Petition disposed of (¶15). Counsel's reference to a co-ordinate Bench decision in WPA No. 21283 of 2021 (04.02.2022) was noted as a submission (¶7).

¶1

S/L 11 21.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav

¶2

WPA 7267 of 2025

¶3

Sri Ramani Chandra Baidya Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Subhojit Saha Ms. Oindrila Ghosal

¶6

… for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Chandi Charan De, Ld. AGP Mr. Ashim Kr. Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tarak Karan

¶8

… for the State.

¶9

The affidavit-of-service as filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶10

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no. 5 to consider his representation dated 18.02.2025.

¶11

In course of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 18 to 20 of the instant writ petition being a copy of deed of conveyance as executed by the government of West Bengal in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the schedule mentioned land of the said deed of conveyance.

¶12

It is submitted that upon execution of the said deed of conveyance, the writ petitioner became the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property of the said deed of conveyance with the restriction that the writ petitioner would not be permitted to transfer the said land for a stipulated period.

¶13

¶14

It is further submitted that after the said stipulated period, the writ petitioner applied for mutating his name in the record of right in respect of the schedule mentioned property of the said deed of conveyance. However, on the basis of such application, the respondent no. 5/authority though mutated some lands of the writ petitioner in the record of right but such mutation has been made with a wrong classification.

¶15

It is thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that such discrepancy was brought to the notice of the respondent no. 5/authority under cover of a letter/representation dated 18.02.2025 but the respondent no. 5/authority for the reason best known to him did nothing and practically sat tight over the matter.

¶16

It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that a co-ordinate Bench in a similar case while disposing WPA No. 21283 of 2021 on 04.02.2022 directed the respondents/authorities to consider and dispose of similar type of representation within a specified period in accordance with law.

¶17

Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and its functionaries at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the various provisions of Chapter VII A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1955’ in short). It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that the said Chapter VII A of the said Act of 1955 deals with the preparation and revision of

¶18

¶19

record of rights and drawing attention to Section 54 in Chapter IX of the said Act of 1955, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that if any person is aggrieved by any order regarding preparation or revision of record of rights, such order is appealable under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955.

¶20

This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has also considered the relevant provisions of law as embodied in Chapter VII A and Chapter IX of the said Act of 1955.

¶21

It appears to this Court that Chapter VII A of the said Act of 1955 deals with the preparation and revision of record of rights. Section 50B of the said Act of 1955 deals with the modification of record of rights while Section 51 of the said Act of 1955 deals with revision and preparation of the record of rights. It further appears that Section 51B and Section 51BB of the said Act of 1955 empower the revenue officer to revise or correct an entry in the record of right even before or after final publication of the record of rights.

¶22

On perusal of Section 54 of the said Act of 1955, it reveals that any order as passed under Chapter VII A of the said Act of 1955 is an appealable order i.e., an appeal shall lie against an order passed in Chapter VII A under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955.

¶23

Coming to the factual aspects of this case, it reveals that it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that despite filing application for mutation, the revenue authority

¶24

¶25

more specifically, the respondent no. 5 did not correctly recorded his name in the record of rights and there lies some discrepancy either in the plot numbers or in respect of nature of classification of the land. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that few lands which have been transferred in favour of the writ petitioner have also not been considered for mutation. 13. This Court considers that for all these aspects remedy lies with the writ petitioner under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955 by preferring an appeal.

¶26

In view of such and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, this Court considers that the relief as sought for in the instant writ petition ought not to be entertained. However, since the writ petitioner has approached before this Court instead of filing an appeal, the period exhausted for filing the instant writ petition as well as for disposal of the instant writ petition is hereby condoned and is to extended, if the writ petitioner files any appeal under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955.

¶27

With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 7267 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶28

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶29

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Ramani Chandra Baidya v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani Chandra Baidya v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhlufar Rahaman Gazi Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalipada Mondal and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Renuka Pati and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mukunda Baidya Alias Mukunda Boidya Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mahadeb Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Narayan Tafadar Alias Narayan Taffadar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.