Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Biswas vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 June, 2017
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
9 21.06.2017
CHC Ct. No.19 W.P.L.R.T.55 of 2017
Tapan Biswas
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Kishore Mukherjee...ld. Advocate
Mr. Soumyajit Mukherjee...ld. Advocate
...for the petitioner
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata...ld. Advocate
...for the State
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be
kept with the record.
This writ application is directed against an
order dated April 24, 2017 passed by the West Bengal
Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Fourth Bench in
the matter of Tapan Biswas versus The State of West
Bengal & ors. [In re: O.A.3594/2016 (LRTT)].
The order impugned to the above Original
Application was an order dated August 18, 2016
passed by the respondent no.4. Respondent no.4
decided that in view of the provisions of Section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, there was a bar for a Civil Court to entertain a suit 2 relating to declaration of title over the property.
Learned Tribunal disposed of the above Original Application granting liberty to the applicant/writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid order instead of adjudicating the point of law involved in the above Original Application.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case we find that the point of law which is involved in this writ application is the scope of entertaining an application filed before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act challenging an order passed by the respondent no.4 in view of the provision of Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act relating to preferring a statutory appeal.
This issue has already been decided by us in the matter of Bidyapati Pal & ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. reported in (2016) 6 WBLR (Cal) 355 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:
"21. However, we may restrict our 3 observations only up to the extent that on a harmonious reading of the provisions of the WBLRTT Act, 1997 which has already been taken into consideration by us hereinabove, the learned Tribunal possesses a special status of exercising a discretionary power of High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as a Court of first instance except exercising such a power of a Division Bench of a High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction for review of an order of the learned Tribunal created in exercise of the power of Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India.
It is necessary to record the relevant portions of the decision of Shiba Prasad Sahoo (supra) as under:
"22. Therefore, on a proper consideration of the aforesaid clauses, viz. clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Tribunal Act, the Tribunal can entertain an application at the instance of an applicant if he/she satisfies the Tribunal that remedial 4 measures under the specified Act are not adequate or causes undue hardship to the applicant."
"23. Therefore the learned Tribunal should not time and again reject an original application by adopting a straight jacket formula to direct a litigant to avail of the remedial measures before approaching the Tribunal."
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances relating to the issue involved in the original application, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the original application by adopting a straight jacket formula instead of deciding the point of law involved in the above original application as a Court of first instance.
In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, this writ application succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside with the direction upon the learned Tribunal to dispose of the original application of the petitioners deciding the point of law involved in the above application in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably 5 within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
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.) 6