Disposed¶26

Kalyan Tripathy and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Jul 2025WPLRT/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under constitutional writ jurisdiction, Appellate Side, High Court at Calcutta; expeditious disposal of O.A. 1481 of 2023 (LRTT) with M.A. 580 of 2023 and M.A. 808 of 2025 pending before the learned Tribunal; land/tenancy dispute; State taking steps prejudicial to petitioners regarding property; interim protection sought before Tribunal; State affidavits filed; Court declines to interfere at this stage as action during pendency abides by result of Tribunal proceeding; disposed without costs; Debangsu Basak, J. authored; Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. concurred; decided July 16, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of without any order as to costs. ¶26

Kalyan Tripathy and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

¶5

W.P.L.R.T. 100 of 2025

¶6

Kalyani Tripathy & Anr. vs.

¶7

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Balailal Sahoo,

¶9

Mr. Nirmalendu Patra,

¶10

Mr. Debnarayan Patra

¶11

For the State : Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Govt.Adv. Ms. Suchana Banerjee

¶12

Heard & Judgment on : July 16, 2025

¶13

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

¶14

Writ petitioners seek expeditious disposal of O.A. 1481 of 2023 (LRTT) along

¶15

with connected application being M.A. 580 of 2023 and M.A. 808 of 2025 pending before the learned Tribunal.

¶16

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that State is taking one step after the other in respect of the property concerned. Petitioners applied for interim protection before the learned Tribunal. State is not filing affidavits in the original application, but continuing to take steps in respect of the land in

¶17

¶18

question prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners

¶19

were constrained to approach the Tribunal. Neither did the Tribunal dispose of the original application, nor the interim applications. Consequently, writ

¶20

petitioners are facing prejudice so far as the property in question.

¶21

State is represented.

¶22

Learned advocate appearing for the State contends that affidavits stand filed before the learned Tribunal.

¶23

Be that as it may, the original application is of 2023. There are several orders passed the learned Tribunal. No doubt, the learned Tribunal is proceeding as expeditiously as possible given the number of pending matters before it.

¶24