Disposed¶14

Sk Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Aug 2025WPLRT/120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound disposal of decade-pending land-reforms miscellaneous case; WPLRT 120 of 2025; MISC/6/LAW/19; OA 34 of 2012 (LRTT); B.L. & L.R.O. Mahishadal, Purba Medinipur; Tribunal order dated May 15, 2025 without time-frame; three-month deadline; server copy compliance without certified copy; adjournment refused; written instruction of incumbent B.L. & L.R.O.; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mahishadal, to dispose of MISC/6/LAW/19 (arising out of OA 34 of 2012 (LRTT)) as expeditiously as possible, positively within three months; compliance permitted on the advocates' communication with a server copy of the order without a certified copy; no order as to costs. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the B.L. & L.R.O. should be directed to dispose of the decade-pending Miscellaneous Case (MISC/6/LAW/19) within a fixed time-frame, the Tribunal's impugned order having directed disposal without fixing any time-frame.

¶13

Court's answer

WPLRT 120 of 2025 is disposed of by directing respondent no. 2, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mahishadal, to dispose of MISC/6/LAW/19, arising out of OA 34 of 2012 (LRTT).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for adjournment is refused, since the prayer in the writ petition is innocuous and the State is represented by the learned Senior Government Advocate.

¶9

Key takeaways

The disposal is to be effected as expeditiously as possible, positively within three months from the date of the order, keeping in mind the fair stand taken by the present B.L. & L.R.O., who joined only last year and was unaware of the pendency.ratio¶14
The concerned B.L. & L.R.O. shall act on the communication of the learned advocates coupled with a server copy of the order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy, for the purpose of compliance.ratio¶15
No order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPLRT 120 of 2025, Sk. Nizamuddin v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.: Miscellaneous Case no. 06 of 2015 (renumbered MISC/6/LAW/19), arising out of OA 34 of 2012 (LRTT), lay undisposed before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mahishadal, Purba Medinipur for almost ten years; the learned Tribunal's impugned order dated May 15, 2025 had merely directed its disposal without fixing any time-frame. Refusing the petitioner's adjournment prayer and acting on the written instruction of the current B.L. & L.R.O. (who joined only last year) seeking three months, the Bench (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. and Uday Kumar, J.) disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent no. 2 to dispose of MISC/6/LAW/19 as expeditiously as possible, positively within three months; the B.L. & L.R.O. may act on the advocates' communication with a server copy of the order without a certified copy; no order as to costs.

¶1

AD-7 Ct No.10 20.08.2025 (SSS)

¶2

WPLRT 120 of 2025

¶3

Sk. Nizamuddin Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶4

Mr. Salil Kumar Maiti

¶5

…For the appellant.

¶6

Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. Munmun Ganguly

¶7

….For the State Respondents.

¶8

An adjournment is sought on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

However, since the prayer in the writ petition is innocuous and the State is represented by learned Senior Government Advocate, we refuse such prayer for adjournment.

¶10

The learned Senior Government Advocate hands over a written instruction, which is kept on record.

¶11

In terms of the same, the current incumbent in the post of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mahishadal, Purba Medinipur has submitted before this court that although the matter is pending since long, three months’ time may be given to him to conclude Miscellaneous Case no. 06 of 2015, which was later renumbered as MISC/6/LAW/19.

¶12

¶13

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although the said proceeding is pending for almost ten years, the same has not yet been decided by the B.L. & L.R.O. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order dated May 15, 2025, merely disposed of the challenge of the writ petitioner in that regard by directing the B.L. & L.R.O. to dispose of the proceeding, without fixing any time-frame.

¶14

It is unfortunate that the writ petitioner has been running from pillar to post for so long. However, we are apprised that the present incumbent in the post of B.L. & L.R.O. has joined only last year and was not aware of the pendency of the matter as such. Keeping such submission and the fair stand taken by the B.L. & L.R.O. in mind, we dispose of WPLRT 120 of 2025 by directing the respondent no. 2, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mahishadal to dispose of MISC/6/LAW/19, arising out of OA 34 of 2012 (LRTT), as expeditiously as possible, positively within three months from this date.

¶15

The concerned B.L. & L.R.O. shall act on the communication of the learned advocates, coupled with a server copy of this order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy for the purpose of compliance.

¶16

No order as to costs.

¶17

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶18

¶19

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Sk Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Nizamuddin 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Abbas Vs the State of West Bengal

Minati Goswami Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Abbas Vs the State of West Bengal

Haldiram Ltd. Vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

Sarojini Mondal and Ors. Vs Sukumar Naskar and Ors.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Prasanta Soren