Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nasiram Nandi vs The State Of West Bengal on 15 November, 2018
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
95 15.11.18
Sc
W.P.L.R.T. 70 OF 2018
----------
Nasiram Nandi
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Balailal Sahoo Md. Nure Zaman Mr. Jahangir Badsha Md. Shahid.
....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Anand Fermeria.
....For the State.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated May 17, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) on O.A. 530 of 2014 (LRTT). The tribunal upon hearing the parties spurned the challenge of the petitioner to the final order of vesting dated January 17, 2014 passed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Manteswar (hereafter the BL&LRO) concluding a suo motu proceeding under section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereafter the Act), registered as No.10/13.
Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to several orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by coordinate Benches of this Court. The essence of these orders is that till such time the Supreme Court disposes of Civil Appeal No.1416 of 1997, proceedings for vesting initiated by the relevant revenue officer may continue and final orders of vesting 2 may be passed but the raiyat may not be dispossessed. There is a further direction that the raiyat, while continuing in possession, shall be restrained from creating third party rights in respect of the properties which are found to be excess of the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act.
Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has not been able to place before us any order that takes a view contrary to what we have noticed above.
In that view of the matter, we admit the writ petition and direct stay of operation of the order under challenge.
The respondents shall remain restrained from interfering with the possession of the properties, which have been directed to be vested by the BL&LRO. At the same time, the petitioner shall remain restrained from creating any third party rights in respect thereof. This arrangement shall continue until further orders are passed on this writ petition.
Since the final decision on this writ petition has to await the decision of Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1997, we see no reason to direct listing of the former prior to disposal of the said appeal. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the parties to mention the writ petition for hearing once Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1997 is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court.
3
If the respondents so choose, they may file affidavit-in-opposition within eight weeks; reply thereto, if any, may be filed by the petitioner by four weeks thereafter.
(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)