Sri Rabindra Nath Prodhan and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶1

15.07.2026 Item No.28 Ct. No. 19 RP

¶2

WPA/15116/2026 SRI RABINDRA NATH PRODHAN AND ORS. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

¶3

Mr. Anujit Mookherji Mr. P. Chandra …For Petitioners

¶4

Ms. Mary Datta Mr. Jagannath Chatterjee …For State

¶5

The writ petitioner and the respondent State are represented by their respective counsel.

¶6

On behalf of the respondent/State a report dated 14.07.2026 is filed in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ and/or writs against the respondent authorities, more specifically against the respondent no.4 authority, commanding him to take appropriate steps in terms of the representation dated 28.04.2026 thereby praying for removal of the unlawful settlement and to restore possession of the land in

¶8

2

¶9

question as involved in the instant writ petition to the writ petitioners.

¶10

At the time of hearing the learned advocate appearing n behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the page nos.126-130 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the order dated 23.06.2004 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WPLRT No.1252 of 2001 wherein the following order has been passed.

¶11

“After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that the writ application must succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. Both the orders passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on 20^th September, 2001 in OA No.1839 of 2001 (LRTT) as also that of the Revenue Officer dated 17^th April, 1978 in proceeding no.12/78, are quashed. Let a fresh determination of ceiling be

¶12

3

¶13

made in respect of the lands of the Big Raiyat Gajendra Narh Pradhan without taking into account the 10.58 acres of land, which had been transferred by him to his daughter Sabitribala Maity.

¶14

We are informed that during this period, in view of the order of vesting certain settlements have been made touching some of the lands forming part of the 10.58 acres of land gifted by Gajendra Nath Pradhan to Sabitribala Maity. In the event, any such settlements have been made the Revenue Officer concerned is directed to initiate proceedings under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and to arrange for annulment of the settlements and also to restore back possession of the lands in question to Sabitribala Maity .”

¶15

It is argued that in compliance of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court the respondent no.4 authority

¶16

4

¶17

though made correction in the relevant Record of Rights thereby incorporating the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ petitioners as Raiyats and thereby canceling and/or annulling the patta as had been given to the settlers. However, the said order dated 23.06.2004 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court has not been fully complied with inasmuch as the said respondent no.4 authority has failed and/or neglected to restore possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners, who are legal heirs of the said Gajendranath Pradhan. It is submitted that by way of a representation dated 28.04.2026 the writ petitioners brought the entire matter to the notice of the respondent no.4 authority with a request to take effective steps for restoration of the land in question as involved in the instant writ petition to the writ

¶18

5

¶19

petitioners but the respondent no.4 authority has made no effort to comply with the request of the said representation.

¶20

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that from the report of the Inspector-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station it would reveal that no cognizable offence has been committed warranting police intervention.

¶21

On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties it appears that admittedly by an order dated 23.06.2004 a Division Bench of this Court also directed the respondent/State to restore back possession of the land in question to one Sabitribala Maity. Materials have been placed before this Court that

¶22

6

¶23

pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench of this Court correction in Record of Rights has been done by the respondent no.4 authority. However, no action has been taken by the respondent no.4 authority for restoration of possession as has been directed by the said Division Bench.

¶24

At this juncture, if I look to Section 6 and Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 it appears that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1995 (‘Act of 1997’ in short) is a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the said Act of 1997 and inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under the said specified Act comes under the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. Such being the position, this Court is constrained to hold that the present writ petitioners have chosen

¶25

7

¶26

a wrong forum for ventilating their grievances and for that reasons this Court is constrained to dismiss the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

Before parting with, this Court however grants liberty to the present writ petitioners to approach the appropriate forum on the selfsame cause of action and selfsame relief and in the event such approach is made within thirty (30) working days from today the said authority shall treat the said application within the time of limitation and shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations as made in the instant writ petition.

¶28

It is further made clear that while dismissing the instant writ petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the instant writ petition and, thus, all

¶29

8

¶30

points are kept open before the appropriate authority, to whom the writ petitioners would approach if so advised.

¶31

11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.

¶32

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Sri Rabindra Nath Prodhan and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rabindra Nath Prodhan and Ors. 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

Md. Mojibar Rahaman Seikh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hafijul Islam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mundumari Ushayatan Math, Repd by Its President Durgapada Giri Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalomoni Basak and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Molla Abdul Odud Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abdul Hakim Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.