Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Kumar Khatua vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 May, 2016
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
10.05.2016
srm
W.P.L.R.T. No. 43 of 2016
Pradip Kumar Khatua
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sukanta Das
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. L.K. Gupta,
Mr. Joyak Gupta
...for the State.
Mr. Prahlad Ghosh,
Mr. Arijit Bera
...for the Respondent No.4
This writ application is directed against a final order dated September 10, 2015 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Second Bench, in the matter of Pradip Kumar Khatua vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [In Re: O.A. No.795 of 2015 (LRTT)].
By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed the respondent No.2 to dispose of the application of the writ petitioner within the time mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner filed the above application for granting a long-term lease of a plot of land lying and situated at Plot No.77, Mouza-Hariharpur, J.L. No.407, District-Paschim Medinipur. According to the petitioner, number of the plot of land in respect of which the application for long 2 term settlement had been submitted, was 77, Mouza-Hariharpur, J.L. No.407 District-Paschim Medinipur.
Be that as it may, it is submitted by Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, West Bengal, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, that the above application of the petitioner had been disposed of before the original application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal. Let a true copy of the above order of disposal dated February 12, 2015 passed by the respondent No.2 be kept on record.
After perusal of the above order, we find that the error with regard to the number of plot did not create any confusion in view of the fact that same had been passed on the basis of application of the petitioner and that too before disposal of his original application by the learned Tribunal.
It further appears from the above order that another application filed by Shri Arabindo Rural Health Care Foundation for long term settlement of other part of the plot of land in question was also considered by the respondent No.2 in the aforesaid order dated February 12, 2015.
In view of the above, there is no scope for the respondent authority to consider the above application of the petitioner afresh in order to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
3
With regard to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order dated February 12, 2015 passed by the respondent No.2 has only been served upon him in course of hearing of this writ application for the first time, the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law in the event he is aggrieved by that order considering the date of communication of the same as recorded hereinabove.
This writ application is, thus, disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. ) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)