Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Bag vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 August, 2019
1
447 22.8.19
Sc
W.P.L.R.T. 87 OF 2019
----------
Tapas Bag
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna ....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Ram Chandra Guchhait.
....For the Respondents 1, 2 & 3.
Mr. Manoranjan Jana ....For the Respondents 5 & 6.
The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complains of failure on the part of the 1st Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) to exercise jurisdiction and to admit an original application [O.A. 1706 of 2018 (LRTT)], wherein he sought for the following relief:
"a) To pass an order with a mandatory direction to the respondent authority to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the suit land in the name of the petitioner in terms of the title deed under the provision of law under Section 50 and 51A(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by deleting the name of the said 3rd parties immediately without any further delay.
b) To pass an order with a mandatory direction to the respondent B.L. & L.R.O. to supply the Judgement the copy of the recording the name of the said third party Late Surendra Nath Das, son of Late Uma Kanta Das immediately."2
It appears from the order impugned in this writ petition dated 9th April, 2019, that an objection to the maintainability of the original application was raised by the Government representative as well as the advocate for the private respondents citing an order dated 5th January, 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court while disposing of a writ petition [W.P. 30524 (W) of 2017] that the petitioner had the occasion to move before His Lordship.
The tribunal was of the view that the point of maintainability required consideration; accordingly, it adjourned hearing of the original application till 5th March, 2020 observing that the point of maintainability would be decided on that date and called for affidavits.
We are surprised that the tribunal did not proceed to decide the objection to the maintainability of the original application on 9th April, 2019 itself. If indeed the tribunal was of the view that the order dated 5th January, 2018 was an impediment for admission of the original application, it should have made an order to that effect. However, to adjourn the hearing of the original application for a period of eleven months to consider the objection regarding maintainability is a course of action that can hardly be countenanced. In W.P. 30524 (W) of 2017, police inaction had been alleged. The learned Judge found that civil disputes between the private parties were yet to be settled. In such circumstances, the learned Judge declined to exercise discretion and left the parties to seek their remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised. It was thereafter that O.A. 1706 of 2018 (LRTT) was presented before the tribunal.
3
We fail to comprehend as to how the order dated 5th January, 2018 could be construed as a bar for entertaining the original application. No point was decided on merits by the learned Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction; instead the parties were granted liberty to seek their remedies before the appropriate forum. If indeed the relief claimed by the petitioner was such that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal, it could have proceeded to dismiss the original application on merits. In our considered opinion, the tribunal should have overruled the objection raised by the respondents by holding the original application to be maintainable.
We appreciate that the docket of the tribunal may be overflowing and it is overburdened due to dearth of adequate number of judicial and administrative members but the manner in which the original application has been dealt with by the order under challenge, leaves a lot to be desired.
We hope and trust that the tribunal shall, in future, refrain from passing such mechanical orders which, rather than advancing the cause of justice, does more dis-service to the institution of the judiciary.
The order dated 9th April, 2019 stands set aside. To expedite a decision on O.A. 1706 of 2018 (LRTT), we direct the respondents to file their affidavits-in- opposition within three months from date. The petitioner shall have a month's time to reply thereto.
The tribunal shall proceed to decide the original application on merits on 5th March, 2020 or soon thereafter, subject to its convenience.
The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)