Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Archana Pal vs The Block Land & Land Reforms Officder & on 28 February, 2017
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
8 28.2.17 W.P.L.R.T. 119 of 2016
sn
ARCHANA PAL
VS.
THE BLOCK LAND & LAND REFORMS OFFICDER &
ORS.
Mr. S.S. Arefin..ld.Adv.
..for the Petitioner
Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharya..ld.Adv.
..for the State
Mr. Arup Banerjee ..ld.Adv.
..for the respdt.no.6
Mr. Rabilal Moitra..ld.Sr.Adv.
Mr. Manabendra Thakur..ld.Adv.
..for Ms.Bulbul Sarbajna
In compliance of the order dated January 25, 2017, the writ
petitioner Smt. Archana Pal, Wife of Sri Sivaram Pal, Village and Post Office
Chotobainan, P.S. Madhabdihi, District Burdwan and Ms. Bul Bul Sarbajna,
learned Advocate, who entered appearance on behalf of the aforesaid petitioner
before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. 1125 of
2014 arising out of O.A. 3957 of 2012(LRTT) are present before this Court
today.
The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is an
order dated September 29, 2016 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms &
Tenancy Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application 1125 of 2014 arising out of
O.A. 3957 of 2012(LRTT). By virtue of the impugned order, the aforesaid
miscellaneous application, which had been filed for condoning the delay in filing
the original application bearing no.3957 of 2012(LRTT) was dismissed.
According to the pleading of this writ application, the petitioner did not appear
before the appellate authority at the time of passing the impugned order.
After considering the impugned order, we find that according to
the contents of paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the writ
2
petitioner in connectiion with the above miscellaneous application, which was
quoted in the impugned order, the appeal was not heard in presence of the
petitioner or her learned Advocate giving no opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
A serious dispute was raised by the learned Advocate appearing
for the respondent no.6 with regard to the pleading made in this writ application
in this regard. According to him, it was the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Tribunal that no one was present before the appellate authority at the time of hearing of the above miscellaneous application or in other wards no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. But in this writ application, the stand of the writ petitioner is something different. According to the pleading made in this writ application, the order was not passed by the appellate authority in presence of the petitioner or her learned Advocate. So, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal was erroneous in its factual matrix.
The above dispute leads us to take into consideration a true copy of the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. While considering the above affidavit in reply(at page 29 of the writ application), we find that there are interpolations of some words.
It is submitted by Mr. Syed Samsul Arefin, on instruction from the petitioner Smt. Archana Pal, who is present in Court today that the interpolations of the words in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid affidavit was not done with her knowledge or consent.
Mr. Rabilal Moitra, learned Senior Advocate enters appearance at this juncture to make submissions on behalf of Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate, daughter of late Ramendranath Sarbjna, a member of Presidency Small Causes Court Bar Association, Calcutta. On instruction, it is submitted by him that the above interpolation in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply has been done by Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate (who is present in Court 3 today) after passing the impugned order. Mr. Moitra further submits on instruction that unqualified apology is tendered by Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate, for her aforesaid conduct with the assurance not to make such an attempt in future.
While we disapprove of the aforesaid conduct of Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate, we find that this is the first incident, which has come to the light so far as the conduct of Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate, is concerned. So, we accept the aforesaid unqualified apology of Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjna, learned Advocate, deciding not to proceed further in this regard.
At this juncture, Mr. S.S. Arefin, learned Advocate for the petitioner made a prayer for withdrawing this writ application.
This writ application is dismissed being not pressed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Let a true copy of this order duly countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court) be sent to the Bar Council of West Bengal, Calcutta for keeping the same in the file of Smt. Bul Bul Sarbjan, learned Advocate. Let another similar copy of this order be also sent to the Presidency Small Causes Court Bar Association.
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 6