Allowed¶19

Provat Kumar Pal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Jan 2025WPLRT/168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of status quo; WPLRT No. 168 of 2024; CAN 1 of 2025; Provat Kumar Pal v. State of West Bengal; DL&LRO Birbhum; BL&LRO; Collector; Section 4C(5) of the Act of 1955; nature, character and possession of property; inaction of DL&LRO in complying with court direction; direction to dispose preferably by November 7, 2025; Uday Kumar, J.; Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.; September 18, 2025; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the status quo order dated January 7, 2025 regarding the nature, character and possession of the property-in-dispute till disposal of the matter by the DL & LRO, Birbhum; DL & LRO directed to dispose of the matter preferably by November 7, 2025; no order as to costs. ¶19

Provat Kumar Pal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether CAN 1 of 2025 filed by the petitioners for extension of the status quo order dated January 7, 2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench should be allowed. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed on contest; the status quo imposed on both parties by the order dated January 7, 2025 regarding the nature, character and possession of the property-in-dispute is extended till disposal of the matter by the DL & LRO, Birbhum.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Merely due to the inaction of the DL & LRO in complying with the direction of the Court, the petitioners cannot suffer unnecessarily.

¶18

Key takeaways

The DL & LRO shall positively dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably by November 7, 2025.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory order in WPLRT No. 168 of 2024 (Provat Kumar Pal and others v. State of West Bengal and others), decided September 18, 2025 by Uday Kumar and Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, JJ. CAN 1 of 2025 sought extension of the status quo order dated January 7, 2025 by which a co-ordinate Bench had referred the matter to the DL&LRO, Birbhum for consideration and disposal within two months, expected the DL&LRO also to address whether the BL&LRO was duly empowered to act as the Collector when passing the order under Section 4C(5) of the Act of 1955, and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the property-in-question until February 28, 2025 or until disposal by the DL&LRO. As the DL&LRO had not decided the matter, the Court held that the petitioners cannot suffer for the DL&LRO's inaction in complying with the Court's direction, allowed CAN 1 of 2025 on contest, extended the status quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the property-in-dispute till disposal of the matter by the DL & LRO, Birbhum, and directed the DL & LRO to positively dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably by November 7, 2025. No order as to costs.

¶1

D/L.4. September 18, 2025. MNS.

¶2

WPLRT No. 168 of 2024 +

¶3

CAN 1 of 2025

¶4

Provat Kumar Pal and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others

¶5

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Mr. Arghya Kamal Das, Ms. Tiyasa Ghosh

¶6

… for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Ms. Arpita Mondal

¶8

…for the State.

¶9

The receipt showing service, filed today by the petitioners, be kept on record. It indicates that notice has been served on the State as per our previous direction.

¶10

In any event, the petitioners as well as the State are represented.

¶11

CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners for extension of the status quo order dated January 7, 2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench then in seisin of the matter.

¶12

The said Bench had recorded that since the matter has been referred to the DL&LRO, Birbhum, for consideration and disposal within two months from the date of communication of the order of the co-ordinate Bench, the DL & LRO

¶13

¶14

would now be seized of the matter and it was expected that while considering the case, the DL&LRO would also address the issue of whether the BL&LRO was duly empowered to act as the Collector when passing the order under Section 4C (5) of the Act of 1955.

¶15

Furthermore, the co-ordinate Bench, considering all the aspects and in the light of the jurisdictional issue raised, directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the property-in-question until February 28, 2025, or until the matter was considered and disposed of by the DL&LRO, whichever was earlier.

¶16

Till date, the petitioners allege that matter has not been decided by the DL & LRO.

¶17

We are unable to understand as to why the DL & LRO could not comply with the order although a specific direction was given to conclude the exercise within two months.

¶18

Be that as it may, merely due to the inaction on the part of the DL & LRO in complying the direction of the Court, the petitioners cannot suffer unnecessarily.

¶19

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed on contest, thereby extending the order of status quo imposed on both parties by the order dated January 7, 2025, regarding the nature, character and possession of

¶20

¶21

the property-in-dispute, till disposal of the matter by the DL & LRO, Birbhum.

¶22