Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Monirul Hoque Molla vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 23 February, 2026
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Supratim Bhattacharya
2026:CHC-AS:317-DB
Form No. J(2)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present: The Hon'be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
W.P.L.R.T. 106 of 2025
Md. Monirul Hoque Molla
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
For the petitioner : Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan
Mr. Ashraful Huq
Ms. Shalini Sen
Ms. Salima Parvin
For the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 : Mr. Debdutta Basu
Mr. Kingsuk Mondal Heard on : 20.02.2026 Judgment on : 20.02.2026 2 2026:CHC-AS:317-DB Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.
2. Although some of the respondents are unrepresented today and the postal endorsement indicates that the address was insufficient, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the service was sought to be effected at the address from which the said respondents contested before the Tribunal.
3. As such, we deem such service to be sufficient and take up the matter for hearing.
4. The present writ petition arises under peculiar circumstances.
5. Initially, the name of the present petitioner was recorded in the records-of-rights in respect of several plots, on the application of the petitioner, by the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO).
6. Subsequently, upon separate sets of challenges being preferred by the different respondents, one challenge being preferred by the present respondent nos.5 to 9 who are represented before us today, the order recording the name of the writ petitioner was set aside in respect of all the plots by orders passed in the different appeals.3
2026:CHC-AS:317-DB
7. The orders of the Appellate Authority were challenged before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal by the petitioner.
8. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the said challenge of the writ petitioner, prompting the writ petitioner to file the present writ petition.
9. The premise of challenge before the Tribunal was that despite the writ petitioner having filed a written objection to the applications for mutation filed by the respondents by way of a common representation, such objection was not considered and the concerned BL & LRO, while allowing the mutation applications, recorded that no objection had been filed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 to 9 submits that at least in the order dated December 5, 2019 passed in Revenue Petition No. 37 of 2018, which had been preferred under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by the said respondents, the Appellate Authority had set aside the recording of the name of the petitioner outright in respect of the plots with which the said respondents are concerned.
11. It is pointed out that in the said order, the Appellate Authority did not leave any further scope for mutation applications being made.
4
2026:CHC-AS:317-DB
12. Although the respondent nos. 5 to 9, as the other respondents, had subsequently made an independent application for mutation of their names, it is submitted that the same was rather superfluous, since it was in the nature of an application to implement the order of the Appellate Authority by removing the name of the writ petitioner and restoring the records to their original position.
13. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner is debarred by the principle of res judicata, once the Appellate Authority having adjudicated on merits the issue regarding the removal of the writ petitioner's name from the records, from re-agitating the self- same question before the BL & LRO by filing any written objection/representation or otherwise.
14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find two salient features in the matter.
15. First, the appropriate remedy before the writ petitioner was not to approach the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directly on the allegation of non-consideration of his written objection, since a final order had already been passed in respect of mutation of the subject plots, but to approach the Appellate Authority against such final order.
5
2026:CHC-AS:317-DB
16. After the BL & LRO having concluded the proceeding and passed a final order, no jurisdiction was left with the Tribunal to deal with the issue afresh.
17. Thus, the appropriate forum before the writ petitioner was the Appellate Authority under Section 54 of the 1955 Act, in a challenge against the final order mutating the names of the private respondents in respect of the subject plots.
18. The second salient feature is that although it might very well have been that the mutation application was superfluous, at least insofar as the respondent nos. 5 to 9 are concerned, since the order of the Appellate Authority dated December 5, 2019 in their appeal did not contemplate any further application for mutation but directed the BL & LRO outright to restore the records to the original position, fact remains that such application for mutation was actually made by the said respondents as well, in which notice was issued to the persons interested, as apparent from the order sheet of the mutation proceeding before the BL & LRO.
19. Thereafter, overlooking the representation filed by the present writ petitioner, which was duly stamped by the office of the BL & LRO indicating its receipt by the said office, the final order was 6 2026:CHC-AS:317-DB passed on the premise that no objection had been filed by any interested person.
20. The other aspect of the matter is that since the representation of the writ petitioner covered all the subject plots, including not only those claimed by the respondent nos. 5 to 9 but the lands claimed by the other private respondents as well, the said cause of action/objection could not be bifurcated by observing that regarding some plots, the writ petitioner had to have an opportunity of hearing and in others, he did not have such opportunity.
21. This issue arises in view of the duality in the orders of the Appellate Authority with regard to the plots with which the respondent nos. 5 to 9 are concerned and the other plots concerning the other private respondents.
22. In the order dated December 5, 2019 passed in Revenue Petition No.3 7 of 2018, concerning the plots in which the respondent nos.5 to 9 are interested, the Appellate Authority did not leave any further scope for filing a mutation application but directed deletion of the name of the writ petitioner outright from the records in respect of the concerned plot.
23. On the other hand, in the order dated August 7, 2018 passed in Revenue Petition No. 314 of 2017, pertaining to the plots of the 7 2026:CHC-AS:317-DB other private respondents, leave was granted to the interested parties to files fresh mutation applications.
24. In order to resolve the issue, a composite representation was filed by the writ petitioner by way of a written objection.
25. In any event, since we have held above that after having proceeded on the premise that fresh mutation applications have been filed by all the respondents separately and having issued notice on the persons interested, it did not lie in the mouth of the BL & LRO to decide the matter ex parte on the observation that no objection has been filed, thereby ignoring the representation/written objection filed by the writ petitioner, dated November 23, 2020, which is annexed at page-90 of the present writ petition.
26. Regarding the first feature of this case as discussed above, we were initially in a dilemma as to whether to refer the matter back to the Appellate Authority by giving liberty to the appellant to challenge the order of the BL & LRO before the Appellate Authority, since the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in any event to entertain the challenge.
27. However, we cannot overlook the ground reality that if we relegate the writ petitioner to the Appellate Authority, another round of litigation will ensue, which will not enure to the benefit 8 2026:CHC-AS:317-DB of the private respondents as well but rather stall the matter further, which would be detrimental to the interest of early hearing for the respondents as well.
28. Hence, in order to cut short the procedural delay, we hereby decide to remand the matter directly to the BL & LRO for a fresh hearing on merits by setting aside the impugned orders of the BL & LRO whereby the mutation application of the private respondents were allowed on the ground of not considering the objection of the writ petitioner.
29. Accordingly, WPLRT 106 of 2025 is disposed of on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated April 23, 2025 passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 253 of 2021 (LRTT) as well as the orders dated November 23, 2020 and December 1, 2020 passed in the mutation cases initiated by the private respondents respectively and directing the concerned BL & LRO to analogously adjudicate all the mutation applications of the different private respondents afresh on merits in respect of the subject plots and, upon consideration of the common representation/written objection filed by the writ petitioner dated November 23, 2020, annexed at page-90 of the present writ petition, and giving opportunity of hearing to all interested 9 2026:CHC-AS:317-DB persons, including the writ petitioner, the private respondents and the State, to pass a reasoned order on the said mutation applications.
30. It is made clear that it will be open to the private respondents to raise all points, including the question as to whether the objection now sought to be given by the writ petitioner is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the Appellate Authority having already decided the issues involved in the earlier round of challenge before the Appellate Authority, before the BL & LRO during the fresh hearing of the mutation applications.
31. As and when so raised, it will be open to the BL & LRO to decide all such issues independently on their own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made hereinabove.
32. In view of the long delay already occasioned, it is expected that the concerned BL & LRO shall decide the mutation applications of the private respondents afresh on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order to the said BL & LRO.
33. All concerned shall act on the server copy of this order for the purpose of compliance, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy.
10
2026:CHC-AS:317-DB
34. There will be no order as to costs.
35. Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD-20 AK