Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jadabendra Narayan Choudhury vs The on 18 August, 2016
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
5 18.8.16 W.P.L.R.T.74 of 2016
JADABENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY VS. THE
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Sandip Roy Chowdhury
Ms. Madhumita Patra
..for the petitioner
Mr. Ansar Mondal
Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharya
..for the State
Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India assailing an order dated September 23, 2015 passed by the West Bengal
Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, in the matter of Tahamina
Bewa Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re: O.A. 1478/2012(MA-551/2014)
(LRTT).
By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed
the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ratua-I, District Malda to dispose of
the representation of the respondent no.5 as also to submit his compliance report
before the learned Tribunal through the learned Government representative.
According to the petitioner, he was a party interested to the above proceeding having interested in the land in question. Our attention has been towards a notice dated October 10, 2013 (at page 29 of the writ application) from which it appears that the above Block Land & Land Reforms Officer issued the above notice to the petitioner in connection with the correction of record of rights of the land in question.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is a party interested to the proceeding pending before the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed without making the petitioner as a party to the above original application.
This issue has already been decided in the matter of Biswajit 2 Jana/Biswanath Jana Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016(3)CHN (Cal) 538 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below :-
"12. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it was open for the writ petitioner to avail of the following three options to protect his interest which might have been affected by the order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT) without impleading him as a party.
(i)To file an appropriate application in the above original application;
(ii)To file an independent original application; or
(iii)An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the appropriate Division Bench of this High Court assailing the aforesaid order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT).
13. Therefore, there was no bar and/or impediment for the learned Tribunal to entertain the original application bearing O.A. No.1931 of 2014 (LRTT), as one of the options available to the writ petitioner had been chosen by him. The learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the above original application by virtue of the order impugned granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file an application for recalling of the order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT) which was one of the aforesaid options, as discussed hereinabove.
14. It is necessary to observe that in the event of availing of the opportunity of the above third option, generally, the High Court is to send the matter back to the learned Tribunal 3 after setting aside the order impugned. If it is prima-facie found that the writ petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, then the same is the appropriate forum to consider the matter afresh as a court of first instance after addition of the aforesaid party to the proceeding."
In view of the above settled proposition of law, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
The learned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the original application after allowing the writ petitioner to be a party to that proceeding.
This writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.) 4 5