Disposed¶20

Omar Faruk Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Feb 2026WPA(P)/216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation appeal pending before DL & LRO; West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (s.54 per State report; s.5 per Court); Block Land and Land Reforms Officer; departmental action against respondent nos. 6 and 7; O.A. 165 of 2023 before West Bengal Administrative Tribunal; tribunal order dated 27.09.2023 challenged before Division Bench; disbursement of pensionary benefits; writ petition disposed of without merits; WPA (P) 216 of 2022; Omar Faruk Molla v. State of West Bengal; decision date 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief recorded; the writ petition was disposed of without adjudication, with an express clarification that the merits of the allegations were not gone into. ¶20

Omar Faruk Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief recorded; the writ petition was disposed of without adjudication, with an express clarification that the merits of the allegations were not gone into.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether anything remains to be decided in WPA (P) 216 of 2022, given the writ petitioner's pending statutory appeal against the mutation and the departmental action already taken against respondent nos. 6 and 7.

¶19

Court's answer

The writ petitioner has already ventilated his grievance before the jurisdictional DL & LRO by filing an appeal under section 5 of the said Act of 1955, and the said appeal is still pending for adjudication.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the alleged misuse of power, the respondent authorities have already taken departmental action against the private respondent nos. 6 and 7, which was challenged before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal as well as before a Division Bench of this Court.

¶17

Key takeaways

In view of the chronology of events, nothing remains to be decided in the instant writ petition for adjudication.ratio¶19
While disposing of the instant writ petition, the court has not gone into the merits with regard to the allegations made in the instant writ petition.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition WPA (P) 216 of 2022 (Omar Faruk Molla v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), decided 02.02.2026, sought issuance of writs directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against respondent nos. 6 and 7 and restoration of the records of rights to their original condition. Per the State's reports, the petitioner had already appealed against the alleged order of mutation before the District Magistrate/DL & LRO (reported as under section 54, and recorded by the Court as under section 5, of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955), with the appeal still pending; departmental action taken against respondent nos. 6 and 7 was challenged in O.A. 165 of 2023 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, whose order dated 27.09.2023 was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, which ordered disbursement of the private respondent's pensionary benefits. Finding that nothing remained to be decided, the bench disposed of the petition, expressly without going into the merits of the allegations.

¶1

02.02.2026 Item No.53 Ct. No.1 PG

¶2

WPA (P) 216 of 2022 Omar Faruk Molla Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶3

Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta, Ld. GP Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick……for the State

¶4

PER, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

¶5

None appears on behalf of the writ petitioner. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent/State.

¶6

At the time of hearing, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the respondent/State draws our attention to the prayers as made in the instant writ petition. It is submitted that in prayer (a) of the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent nos. 6 and 7 with a further direction upon the respondent authorities to restore the records of rights to its original condition, particulars of which has been mentioned in prayer (b) of the instant writ petition.

¶7

In course of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee draws our attention to the report dated 16.09.2022, as submitted by the respondent no. 5 as well as the supplementary report dated

¶8

¶9

01.12.2025, as has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 5 authority.

¶10

It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that on perusal of the report dated 16.09.2022, it would reveal that being aggrieved with the alleged order of mutation in respect of the plots of land, as involved in the instant writ petition, it would reveal that the present petitioner has filed an appeal under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1955’ in short) before the jurisdictional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DL & LRO’ in short) and the said appeal is still pending.

¶11

It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that on perusal of subsequent supplementary report dated 01.12.2025, it would reveal that the respondent authorities have already taken departmental action against the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 and such departmental action was challenged before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by filing a case No. O.A. 165 of 2023.

¶12

It is further submitted that challenging an order dated 27.09.2023, as passed by the said tribunal in the aforementioned O.A., a writ petition was

¶13

¶14

filed before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein an order has been passed for disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the private respondent. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, in view of the aforementioned factual position, nothing remains to be decided in the instant writ petition.

¶15

On careful perusal of the entire materials, as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocate for the respondent/State and its instrumentalities, we find that the present writ petitioner has already ventilated his grievance before the jurisdictional DL &LRO by filing an appeal under section 5 of the said Act of 1955 and the said appeal is still pending for adjudication.

¶16

It is pertinent to mention here that such an appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the mutation by the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.

¶17

As rightly submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that considering the alleged misuse of power, the respondent authorities have already taken departmental action against the private respondent nos. 6 and 7, which was challenged before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal as well as before a Division Bench of this Court.

¶18

¶19

In view of the chronology of events, we thus, find nothing remains to be decided in the instant writ petition for adjudication.

¶20

With the aforementioned observations, WPA (P) 216 of 2022 is, thus, disposed of.

¶21

It is however, made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, we have not gone into the merits with regard to the allegations made in the instant writ petition.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶23

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ)

¶24

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

Omar Faruk Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omar Faruk Molla 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

Gopi Bondhu Ganguly Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hari Om Kumar Bhagat Vs Union of India and Ors.

MD Golam Rosul and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Gokul Dey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sunny Singh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs Union of India and Ors.