Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Syed Azharuddin & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 December, 2017

Author: Debasish Kar Gupta

Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta

                                    1



06.12.2017
Item no. 113
Court No. 19
   ap                   W.P.L.R.T. No. 33 of 2017
                                 With
                          CAN 4289 of 2017

                        Syed Azharuddin & Ors.
                                  Versus
                     The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                 Mr. Satyajit Mandal,
                 Mr. Abhilash Sinha Roy.
                                           ...For the Petitioners.
                 Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,
                 Mr. Anindya Halder.

                 ...For the Respondent Nos.9,10,13,17,18, 20-

None appears on behalf of the respondent nos.11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 19 in spite of service of copy of the writ petition upon them.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the final order dated January 11, 2016 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench in O.A. No. 1898 of 2015 (LRTT). 2 By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to dispose of the application of the applicants/respondents to treat the copy of this original application as the representation of the applicants and to dispose of the same after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

According to the petitioners, the above order was passed behind their back, i.e., without making them parties to that proceeding.

The above situation has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court where one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) was a member of that Bench in the matter of Biswajit Jana - Vs. - The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2016) 6 WBLR (Cal) 377 and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out 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." Considering the above settled principles of law, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside but considering the purports and effects of the impugned order, we find that only a direction is given for disposal of the representation of the applicants after giving opportunity of hearing to all 4 of them. Therefore, the defect of passing an order behind the back of the petitioners can be removed by adding the petitioners as party respondents to the above proceeding in the following manner:

The impugned order is slightly modified to the effect that the representation of the applicants shall be disposed of by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the writ petitioners, who shall be treated as party respondents to the original application under reference.

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the connected application being CAN 4289 of 2017 is also 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 as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)