Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Belldon Dealcomm Private Ltd. & Anr vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
34. 03.04.2025
Court No.26.
(Pritam)
WPLRT 14 of 2024
Belldon Dealcomm Private Ltd. & Anr.
-Vs.-
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limted & Ors.
Mr. Lakhi Gupta, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Asif Hussain,
Mr. Pranit Bag,
Ms. Rituparna Chatterjee,
Ms. Khushboo Choudhary
.....for the writ petitioner.
Mr. Kallol Basu,
Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty
....for the HPCL.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. A.G.P.,
Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata
....for the State.
1. The petitioner assails an order dated August 31, 2023
passed in M.A.56/2021, 538/2023 (O.A.162 of 2021)
(LRTT).
2. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner
submits that, the Thika Controller assumed jurisdiction
erroneously. He refers to the facts of the present case.
He submits that there exists a lease in respect of the
demised premises which takes the demised premises
within the purview of the West Bengal Tikha Tenancy
(Acquisition and Regulation Act), 2001.
3. The State and the private respondents are represented.
4. The order impugned is dated August 31, 2023. 2
5. Apparently, the writ petitioner before us approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, by way of an Original Application being OA 162 0f 2021.
6. In such original application, the writ petitioner before us sought relief with regard to an order dated September 27, 2019 passed by the Thika Controller in Misc. Case no.61 of 2008.
7. Thika Controller passed an order in Misc. No. 61 of 2008 holding that, the premises concerned was a thika tenancy.
8. The writ petitioner before us availed of statutory alternative remedies available to it by approaching the Tribunal assailing the order of the Thika Controller.
9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon (2016) 3 Cal LT 313 (Shani Enclave Private Limited vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors). and submits that, the Thika Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction and that that, the lack of such inherent jurisdiction can be agitated by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as sought to be done by the writ petitioner herein.
10. With respect, we are of the view that, since there exists statutory alternative remedy, which the writ petitioner before us availed of, it would be appropriate that the Tribunal decides the issue of jurisdiction raised by the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. 3
11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are unable to return a finding that, the Thika Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction.
12. In other words, the Thika Controller possessed necessary jurisdiction to decide whether or not to the property concerned is governed by the Act of 2001 or not. Such order of the Thika Controller is amenable to challenge before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal which the writ petitioner availed of.
13. The impugned order dated August 31, 2023 posted the original application on April 16, 2024. We are informed that the next date is December 5, 2025. We are also informed that at present, four benches of the Tribunal are functioning.
14. In such circumstances, in the event, the writ petitioner before us applies before the Tribunal for advancing the date of hearing of the original application, the concerned Tribunal will decide such application expeditiously.
15. It is expected that the Tribunal decides the original application and connected applications, if any, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from date.
16. WPLRT 14 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly.
17. There will be no order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Om Narayan Rai, J.)