Octagon Plazza Private Limited and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2026WPLRT/8/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thika tenancy jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction of Thika Controller; Section 5(3) West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 2001; Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1949 and 1981; West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT) O.A. No. 762 of 2024 remand to Thika Controller, Kolkata; coordinate Bench order dated August 14, 2023 in WPLRT 85 of 2023; writ disposed of without interference; three-month timeline for Thika Controller; Octagon Plazza Private Limited v. State of West Bengal; High Court at Calcutta, WPLRT 8 of 2026, judgment dated February 10, 2026; Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ was disposed of without interfering with the impugned Tribunal order dated January 06, 2026, with no order as to costs. ¶¶25

Octagon Plazza Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ was disposed of without interfering with the impugned Tribunal order dated January 06, 2026, with no order as to costs.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in remitting the thika tenancy dispute to the Thika Controller instead of concluding the matter itself by deciding the issue. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the Tribunal's order, since it is under the 2001 Act that power has been vested in the Thika Controller for the first time to adjudicate the issues-in-question between the parties.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

In view of the long time which has elapsed, the Thika Controller is expected to decide the issues-in-question strictly in terms of the Tribunal's order, adhering to the timeline stipulated by the Tribunal.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), WPLRT 8 of 2026, decided February 10, 2026 — Octagon Plazza Private Limited and another v. The State of West Bengal and others. The petitioners challenged the order dated January 06, 2026 of the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 762 of 2024 (LRTT), whereby the Tribunal held that a dispute as to whether a property is a thika tenancy and/or whether an occupier is a thika tenant falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Thika Controller under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 2001, and remitted the matter to the Thika Controller, Kolkata to adjudicate afresh with pleadings, documents, hearings and a reasoned speaking order within three months. Counsel for the petitioners argued the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue itself, particularly as a lease of 1928 (five years) and a pre-1949 pucca structure meant the property could not be a thika property. Held (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.; Supratim Bhattacharya, J. concurring): no illegality or irregularity in the Tribunal's order, since adjudicatory power over these issues was vested in the Thika Controller for the first time under the 2001 Act; given the long pendency, the Thika Controller is expected to decide strictly in terms of the Tribunal's order and adhere to its timeline; the petitioners' merits contentions stand disputed by the private respondents. Writ disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; no order as to costs.

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya &

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

¶5

WPLRT 8 of 2026

¶6

Octagon Plazza Private Limited and another Vs.

¶7

The State of West Bengal and others

¶8

For the petitioners	: Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv.
For the State	: Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Tamal Taru Panda
For the private respondents	: Mr. Arkadyuti Pahari (via VC), Ms. Gargi Maity, Mr. Alik Mandi
Heard on	: February 10, 2026.
Judgment on	: February 10, 2026.

¶9

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

¶10

Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.

¶11

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a lease in respect of the subject property was granted in the year 1928 for a period of five years. Subsequently, prior to the coming into force of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, a pucca structure existed on the property. Thus, it is argued that the property could not have been a thika property within the contemplation of the Thika Tenancy Act, as it stood evolved by successive amendments.

¶12

On a previous occasion, when the matter came up before this Court, a coordinate Bench, by an order dated August 14, 2023 passed in WPLRT 85 of 2023, had directed the Controller to decide the issue as to whether the

¶13

¶14

subject property is a thika tenancy in accordance with the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981.

¶15

Subsequently, the matter went back to the Thika Controller who held that he did not have the power to adjudicate such issue under the 1981 Act.

¶16

Being aggrieved, the petitioners moved an original application bearing O.A. No. 762 of 2024 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order dated January 06, 2026, held that the legal position is well-settled that when a dispute arises as to whether a property is a thika tenancy and/or whether an occupier is a thika tenant, such dispute squarely falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Thika Controller under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 2001.

¶17

Accordingly, the matter was remitted by the Tribunal back to the Thika Controller, Kolkata to adjudicate the dispute afresh strictly in accordance with law, by exercising powers under Section 5(3) of the 2001 Act, upon giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and permitting them to file pleadings and documents and to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all issues raised.

¶18

Having regard to the long pendency of the litigation, the Thika Controller was directed to conclude the entire exercise and pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

¶19

Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have been running from pillar to post for a prolonged period and the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded the matter by deciding the issue itself, without relegating it further.

¶20

Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State and the learned

¶21

¶22

Advocate appearing for the private respondents, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal, since it is under the 2001 Act that power has been vested in the Thika Controller for the first time to adjudicate the issues-in-question between the parties.

¶23

However, we record the fact that the contentions of the writ petitioners on merits are disputed by learned counsel for the private respondents.

¶24

Be that as it may, in view of the long time which has elapsed in the meantime, it is expected that the Thika Controller shall decide the issues-in-question strictly in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal, adhering to the timeline as stipulated by the Tribunal.

¶25

WPLRT 8 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated January 06, 2026 passed by the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 762 of 2024 (LRTT), in the light of the above observations.

¶26

There will be no order as to costs.

¶27

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶28

I agree. ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J .)

¶29

( Supratim Bhattacharya, J .)

¶30

AD -18 Ct No.16 10.02.2026 (TN)

Octagon Plazza Private Limited and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Octagon Plazza Private Limited and Anr. 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

Anil Pal @ Anil Kumar Paul and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Khairul Hasan Chowdhury and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sekh Abdul Selim and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dhrubajyoti Dutta Vs Mrinal Kumar Mukhopadhyay

Asoke Sawoo Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Basak @ Jayanta Basak and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.