Dismissed¶20

Paramita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Jul 2025WPA/8915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation application pending with BL&LRO (respondent no. 5); writ petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction - remedy lies with the Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (Sections 2(r), 6(b), 4); West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as specified Act; inaction/culpable negligence of authority; registered deed of purchase dated 21.05.2014; WPA 8915 of 2024; decided 03.07.2025 by Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with an express observation that the merits of the mutation application were not examined, and no order as to costs. ¶20

Paramita Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with an express observation that the merits of the mutation application were not examined, and no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether an appropriate writ/writs should be issued against respondent no. 5 (BL&LRO) to consider the writ petitioner's mutation application in accordance with law. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 mandates that an application complaining of inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified Act comes under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of that Act; the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is admittedly a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the 1997 Act.

¶17

Key takeaways

The relief prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in view of lack of jurisdiction.ratio¶19
While disposing of the writ petition, the Court has not gone into the merit of the application for mutation submitted by the writ petitioner with respondent no. 5.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 8915 of 2024) by Smt. Paramita Ghosh, owner of land since a registered deed of purchase dated 21.05.2014, praying for a writ against respondent no. 5 (jurisdictional BL&LRO) to consider her pending mutation application under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Held: Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 mandates that an application complaining of inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified Act (the 1955 Act being admittedly a specified Act under Section 2(r)) comes under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the 1997 Act; accordingly the relief sought could not be granted by the writ court. The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merit of the mutation application. No order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.; 03.07.2025.)

¶1

S/L 4 03.07.2025 Court. No. 19 Suvayan

¶2

WPA 8915 of 2024

¶3

Smt. Paramita Ghosh Vs.

¶4

State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Anirban Majumder

¶6

…for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar

¶8

…for the State.

¶9

The affidavit-of-service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

The writ petitioner and the respondents/State are represented by their respective learned advocates.

¶11

It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that though the writ petitioner became the owner of the land particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the instant writ petition by virtue of a registered deed of purchase dated 21.05.2014, however, despite submission of application for mutation with the jurisdictional BL&LRO who is the respondent no. 5 herein mutation has not yet been effected.

¶12

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that an appropriate writ/writs may be issued against the respondent no. 5/authority to consider the mutation application as filed by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

¶13

Mr. De, learned AGP appearing for the respondents/State submits before this Court that in view of the provision of Section 2 (r) read with Section

¶14

¶15

6 (b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1997’) such relief cannot be granted by this Court since the same is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal as constituted under Section 4 of the said Act of 1997.

¶16

On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned Advocates for the contending parties it appears to this Court that the writ petitioner approached before this Court complaining inaction and/or culpable negligence on the part of the respondent no. 5/authority for not effecting mutation as per the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which is admittedly as specified Act under Section 2 (r) of the said Act of 1997.

¶17

As rightly pointed out by Mr. De that Section 6 of the said Act of 1997 clearly mandates that an application complaining inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified Act comes under the jurisdiction of the tribunal as constituted under Section 4 of the said Act of 1997.

¶18

This Court thus finds sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. De.

¶19

This Court is thus of considered view that the relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in view of lack of jurisdiction in view of the settled position of law as discussed supra.

¶20

With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition being WPA 8915 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶21

¶22

Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that this Court while disposing the instant writ petition has not gone into the merit of the application for mutation as has been submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondent no. 5/authority.

¶23

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

¶24

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for,

¶25

be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶26

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)

Paramita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramita Ghosh 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

The Deputy Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare and Tribal Development Directorate and Anr. Vs Subhasish Das and Ors.

Pappu Das Vs the Principal Secretary Govt. of West Begnal and Anr.

Sri Sri Hari Jiew Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Nirman Construction and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Manas Paul Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jayantri Ram Vs Union of India & Ors.