Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirmalendu Mahapatra @ Nirmalendu Das ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
04.07.2018.
Item no. 102.
Court No. 19
ap
W.P.L.R.T. No. 16 of 2018
Nirmalendu Mahapatra @ Nirmalendu Das Mahapatra
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asim Kumar Roy.
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Paramita Roy.
...For the Respondent No.4(ii).
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order dated December 22, 2017 passed the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, 4th Bench, Kolkata in M.A. No. 342 of 2016 arising out of original application bearing O.A. No. 3807 of 2015 (LRTT).
By the said order, the learned Tribunal declined to entertain the Miscellaneous Case and gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority to regularize the appeal after pointing out the death of the respondent no.4, namely, Satyabrata Mishra. During the pendency of the appeal, as his 2 estate remain unrepresented, at the time of hearing of the appeal.
According to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent no.4, namely, Satyabrata Mishra, died on January 16, 2005, during the pendency of another original application being O.A. No. 2671 of 2004 (LRTT). The heirs of the said Satyabrata Mishra (since deceased) were substituted on March 24, 2005 in the said proceeding. Thereafter, the original application bearing O.A No. 2671 of 2004 (LRTT) was disposed of with a direction upon the same Appellate Authority on November 20, 2007 to hear and dispose of appeal case afresh on merits in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned order after affording all the interested parties an opportunity of being heard. According to him, once the said substitution had been allowed in a proceeding by the learned Tribunal sending back the subsequent original application to the Appellate Authority for 3 regularization of the said appeal, was bad in law. According to him, it was a mistake on the part of the Appellate Authority and the legal heirs of the deceased Satyabrata Mishra had appeared in the said proceeding before the Appellate Authority.
We find from the records that none of the parties had brought it to the notice of the Appellate Authority that the respondent no.4 had died and that his legal heirs had already been substituted before the Tribunal on March 24, 2005 even in the said proceeding filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.4, namely, Satyabrata Mishra has been impleaded as a party, and no his legal heirs.
Under such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal because an order passed in an appeal against a dead man, was a nullity. We further find that the order of the learned Tribunal remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority by an order dated November 20, 2007 to hear and dispose of the 4 appeal on merits has also not been complied with and the appeal has been decided on the point of limitation alone.
In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Tribunal is not interfered with.
With the above observations, this writ application stands 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 as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)