Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Barun Kumar Ghatak vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 22 May, 2025
May 22, 2025
Sl. No.153
Court No.19
s.biswas
WPA 11490 of 2025
Sri Barun Kumar Ghatak
vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Kallol Basu
Mr. Suman Banerjee
... for the petitioner
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Govt. Adv.
Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal
... for the State
1. The affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of
the writ petitioner is taken on record.
2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ
petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate
writ/writs against the respondent authorities,
more specifically against the respondent no.5 authority for quashing of the letter dated 05.05.2025, a copy of which has been annexed at page no.53 of the instant writ petition.
3. In course of his submission, Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this court to page no.18 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the certified copy of the order dated 16.06.2020 as passed by the jurisdictional BL&LRO, i.e. the respondent no.6 herein in a proceeding under Article 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1955).
4. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that from the said order dated 16.06.2020, it would reveal that in the said proceeding the writ petitioner was 2 permitted to retain 8.6491 acres of land while 19.6185 acres of land was vested in the State. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that from the said order dated 16.06.2020 it would reveal that the particulars of the retained land have been described specifically in Annexure/Schedule-B of the said order.
5. Drawing attention to page no.21 of the instant writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Basu that in the said page the details of the plot numbers of the land as has been retained by the writ petitioner in connection with the aforementioned proceeding have been duly described.
6. At this juncture, Mr. Basu again draws attention of this court to page no.44 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the Memo dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Special Secretary of MS&ME Department, wherefrom it would reveal that the respondent State has floated a scheme in the name of the RFP for development of market complex in PPP Mode.
7. It is submitted further by Mr. Basu that from page no.45 of the instant writ petition, it would reveal that some of the plots as have been retained by the writ petitioner in connection with the aforementioned proceeding are/were still recorded in Khatian No.1, which is why the writ petitioner's learned advocate, by issuing a letter 3 dated 25.04.2025 requested the respondent authorities to correct the record of right, since it was the apprehension of the writ petitioner that taking advantage of the incorrect recording the writ petitioner's retained land may be utilized for RFP project.
8. Drawing further attention to page no.53 of the instant writ petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Basu that by issuing the memo under challenge dated 05.05.2025, the respondent no.6 initiated a suo motu review proceeding with a sole intention to record the retained land in Khatian no.1.
9. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent no.6 authority to initiate the said suo motu review proceeding ignoring the outcome of the proceeding as conducted by the respondent no.5..
10. It is submitted by Mr. Basu that the respondent no.6 being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to act in a reasonable manner keeping in mind the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that in the event the respondent no.6 is permitted to proceed with the said suo motu review proceeding, the writ petitioner's constitutional right under Article 4 300A of the Constitution of India is going to be violated and therefore an ad interim order in terms of the prayer (g) and (h) of the instant writ petition may be passed till disposal of the instant writ petition.
12. Such prayer is opposed by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State. It is submitted by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that the instant writ petition is not maintainable since the action of the respondent no.6 by no stretch of imagination comes under the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the specific bar under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunals Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1997).
13. It is further submitted that under Section 7 of the said Act of 1997, a tribunal as established under Section 4 is empowered to deal with the matter and therefore there cannot be any scope to pass any interim order as prayed for.
14. Considering the entire materials as placed before this court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this court finds that the instant writ petition is required to be heard only after obtaining a report in the form of affidavit from the State.
5
15. Since prima facie case has been made out before this court that in the event the relevant retained plots comes under their review proceeding, for whatever reason and in the event, any adverse order is passed in such review proceeding, the writ petitioner may not only suffer irreparable loss and injury but the very purpose of filing the instant writ petition would become infructuous. It thus appears to this Court that so far as balance of convenience is very much in favour of the writ petitioner.
16. In view of such, let the instant matter be listed in the Combined Monthly List of July, 2025 under the same heading.
17. Liberty is given to the respondent/State to submit a report in the form of affidavit on the day of hearing. However, an advance copy of such report shall have to be furnished to the learned advocate on record for the writ petitioner positively by June 27, 2025.
18. Exception to such report is to be filed also on the day of hearing, however, an advance copy of the same shall have to be furnished to the learned advocate on record for the respondent/State positively by July 4, 2025.
19. Considering the urgency of the situation as discussed supra, there shall be a stay of all further proceedings in connection with the review 6 proceeding (suo moto) bearing case no.Misc.01/Review (vesting)/Chhatna/2025 u/s 14T(3A), 14T(9) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 read with the Rule 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 against the Misc. Case No.01/2019 (arising out of Ld. WBLRTT order dated 01/10/2001 in the matter of TA No.1658 of 2000), as pending before the respondent no. 6 till the last day of July, 2025 or till further order whichever is earlier.
20. It is further ordered that status quo be also maintained in respect of writ petitioner's property particulars of which has been mentioned in Page No. 21 of the instant writ petition till the last day of July, 2025 or till further order whichever is earlier.
21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon completion of all necessary formalities (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)