Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rasunara Bibi Mallick & Ors vs The State Of on 23 November, 2016
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
48 23.11.16 W.P.L.R.T.47 of 2016
RASUNARA BIBI MALLICK & ORS.VS. THE STATE OF
WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. C.R. Chakraborty.ld.Adv.
Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty.ld.Adv.
Mr. Somenath Banerjee .ld.Adv.
..for the petitioners
md. Sanowar Jahan..ld.Adv.
Ms. Nilofar Begum..ld.Adv.
..for the respdts.5-7
None appears on behalf of the State respondents when the matter
is called on. No accommodation is prayed for.
This writ application is directed against an order dated July 4, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, in case no.O.A.405 of 1999(M.A.702 of 2009, T.A.206,207 of 2000) (LRTT).
A short point of law is involved in this writ application. According to the writ petitioners, they were not made parties to the original application and the impugned judgement was passed behind their back. So, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside for deciding the issue in the original application after giving the writ petitioners an opportunity of hearing afresh.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, we find that admittedly the writ petitioners were not made parties to the original application. This issue has already been decided in the matter of Biswanath Jana Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016(3)CHN (Cal) 538 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below :-
"12. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it was open for the writ petitioner to avail of the following 2 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.
14. It is necessary to observe that in the event of availing of the opportunity of the above third option, generally, the High Court is to send the matter back to the learned Tribunal after setting aside the order impugned. If it is prima-facie found that the writ petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, then the same is the appropriate forum to consider the matter afresh as a court of first instance after addition of the aforesaid party to the proceeding."
3
In view of the above settled proposition of law, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Leave is granted to the writ petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal for adding them as parties to the original application within a period of three weeks from date. The learned Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the above original application after adding the writ petitioners as parties to the above proceeding expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the application for adding the parties.
This writ petition is thus 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 on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.) 4 5