Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
82/2011 on 4 May, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
1
4.5.2011
ks W.P.L.R.T. 82 of 2011
Mr. Anindya Mitra,
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra,
Mr. J. Chakraborty,
Mr. Ayan Banerjee,
Mr. Nabanita Deb Roy
.... For the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya,
Mr.Rafiqul Islam
... For the private respondent.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Mr. Kum Kum Mukherjee ... For the respondent No.2 Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties. Assailing the portion of the order dated 4th April, 2011, whereby and whereunder the original application No.1758 of 2009 (LRTT) was disposed of by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, this writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The portion of the impugned order reads such:
"At this stage, O.A. No.1758 of 2009(LRTT) is taken up for hearing. Perused the instant application. Heard. Considered. On perusal of the instant application and the other materials on record, we pass the following order:-
Respondent No.2 (iii) i.e. B.L. & L.R.O., Barackpore-II, Dist. North 24 Parganas is directed to comply with the order dt. 11.08.2004 passed in 2 O.A. No. 1703 of 2004 (LRTT) positively within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Petitioners are directed to serve copy of the original application with all its annexures as well as copy of this order upon the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned within fifteen days from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.
O.A. No.1758 of 2009 (LRTT) is thus disposed of."
It is the submission of Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner got no opportunity to place his case, as on 4th April, 2011, learned Advocate for the petitioner was ready to oppose the Miscellaneous Application praying for condonation of delay and for setting aside the order of dismissal as earlier passed in the original application but allowing those applications and bringing the original application on record, the learned Tribunal below disposed of the main application also. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that original application was not maintainable as it is hit by abuse of the process of law since on the particular issue different proceedings were initiated by the applicant of the original application and those were not considered by the learned Tribunal below. In a nut shell it is the submission of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal below has not passed a reasoned order as to why the concerned BL & LRO, Barrackpore-II was directed to comply with the earlier order dated 11th August, 2004. We are not finding any reason in 3 the impugned order. Having regard to the contention made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the submission of the respondents, who is represented through the learned Advocate Mr. Bhattacharyya, we are of the view that the original application is required to be heard on merit by the learned Tribunal below on considering of the legal questions, more particularly on the point of the abuse of the process of the law.
Having regard to that position, the portion of the impugned order as already quoted above is set aside and quashed. The learned Tribunal below is directed to hear the original application No.1758 of 2009 (LRTT) de novo and to pass a reasoned decision, on hearing the parties inviting filing of respective rejoinder and/or opposition or reply as the case may be against the original application.
It is noted that one of the original applicants has controverted the submission made by Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate relating to abuse of the process of the law. It is made clear that we have not decided any point about maintainability of the original application on the ground of abuse of the process of the law, as has been submitted.
All points have been kept open for decision by the learned Tribunal below.
It is also made clear that the learned Tribunal will bring the matter in the list and thereafter will pass direction for filing reply/ 4 rejoinder. Parties are liberty to mention the matter before the learned Tribunal.
Writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid order.
Let xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertaking.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) (Md.Abdul Ghani, J.) 5