Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tanushree Naskar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2016
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
5 2.12.16 W.P.L.R.T. 115 of 2016
sn
TANUSHREE NASKAR
VS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Biswaranjan Bhagat..ld.Adv.
Mr. Subhendu Banerjee.ld.Adv.
..for the petitioner
Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya..ld.Adv.
Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya..ld.Adv.
Mr. Debanjan Das..ld.Adv.
..for the respdrs.6-8
Mr. Chandi Charan De..Ld.Addl.G.P.
Mr. S. Bandopadhyay..ld.Adv.
..for the State
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India assailing a final order dated July 31, 2014 passed by the West Bengal
Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, in the matter of Bhagabati
Gayan & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re: O.A. 1680 of
2014(LRTT).
By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal set aside
the order passed by the respondent no.4 on the ground that the above respondent
had acted just like a Civil Court while accepted the claim of the writ petitioner for recording her name in the record of rights on the strength of a certificate issued by the Panchayat.
It is submitted by Mr. Biswaranjan Bhagat, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 approached the learned Tribunal bypassing a forum for preferring a statutory appeal against the order passed by the respondent. According to him, it was not permissible.
The next contention of Mr. Bhagat is this no objection was raised by the above respondents for producing a Panchayat certificate before the respondent no.4 in respect of her claim for recording her name in the record of 2 rights.
It is submitted by Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 6 to 8 that in a case where a point of law is involved there is no bar and/or impediment to approach the learned Tribunal bypassing the statutory appellate forum.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal possesses a special status of exercising a discretionary power of High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as a Court of first instance except exercising such a power of a Division Bench of a High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction for review of an order of the learned Tribunal created in exercise of power of Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India.
This issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta, J) by an order dated March 11, 2016 in the matter of Sri Bidyapati Pal & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re: W.P.L.R.T. 19 of 2016) and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
" However, we may restrict our observations only up to the extent that on a harmonious reading of the provisions of the WBLRTT Act, 1997 which has already been taken into consideration by us hereinabove, the learned Tribunal possesses a special status of exercising a discretionary power of High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as a Court of first instance except exercising such a power of a Division Bench of a High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction for review of an order of the learned Tribunal created in exercise of the power of Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India.
It necessary to record the relevant portions of the decision of Shiba Prasad Sahoo (supra) as under:
"22. Therefore, on a proper consideration of the aforesaid clauses, viz. clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Tribunal Act, the Tribunal can entertain an 3 application at the instance of an applicant if he/she satisfies the Tribunal that remedial measures under the specified Act are not adequate or causes undue hardship to the applicant."
Therefore the learned Tribunal should not time and again reject an original application by adopting a straight jacket formula to direct a litigant to avail of the remedial measures before approaching the Tribunal."
In view of the above, it is open for the learned Tribunal created under Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India to consider in original application where the applicant approaches the learned Tribunal bypassing the statutory appellate forum and the dispute relates to the point of law.
So far as the next contention is concerned, we find that reliance placed upon the certificate issued by the respondent no.4 for a decision for recording the name of the petitioner in the record of rights was under challenge before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by Mr. Bhagat, learned Advocate for the petitioner in this regard.
In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, this writ application stands disposed of.
However, we direct the respondent no.4 to dispose of the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the impugned judgement expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
We further make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the rival claims of the parties and all points are kept open.
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.
4
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.) 5 6