Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subrata Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 August, 2017
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1
21.08.2017
pb
Ct. No. 9
W. P. 1142 (W) of 2017
Subrata Mondal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dipankar Pal.
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Aniruddha Sen.
.....for the State.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 26,
2016 passed by the respondent no.4, Revenue Officer, under
Section 14T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Sub-divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas by filing the writ petition.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased land from the respondent no.5 under various registered sale deeds during the period from 2002-2005. The further contention made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted application before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer for correction of the name of the petitioner in the record of right in the year 2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 has initiated a proceeding for vesting of the land in question under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal 2 Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the vendor of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioner has challenged the proceeding of vesting under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 not on merit, but on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel representing the State respondents submits that the transfer of the land by the vendor of the petitioners is in violation of the provision of Section 14U of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The further submission made on behalf of the State respondents is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ applications due to specific bar under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997(hereinafter referred to as "W. B. Land Tribunal Act").
There is no doubt that the petitioner has challenged the proceeding under Section 14T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The question for consideration of the Court is whether this Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sitting singly when the petitioner has challenged the proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In my view, it is immaterial 3 whether the impugned order under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is challenged on merit or on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice for the purpose of exercise of writ jurisdiction by the Single Bench of this Court.
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is a specified Act under Section 2 ( r) of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act. Section 6 of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act lays down that the Tribunal shall have power, authority and jurisdiction in relation to any order made by an authority under the specified Act. In the present case the order under challenge is passed by the authority under Section 14T(3) of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act which is specified Act. It is relevant to quote the provisions of Section 8 of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act, which is as follows: -
"8. Exclusion of Jurisdiction of courts. -
On and from the date from which jurisdiction, power and authority become exercisable under this Act by the Tribunal, the High Court, except where that Court exercises writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a Division Bench, or any civil court, except the Supreme Court, shall not entertain any proceeding or application or exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to adjudication or trial of disputes or applications relating to land reforms or any matter 4 connected therewith or incidental thereto or any other matter under any provision of a specified Act."
On perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act, I find that the Single Bench of the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Tribunal has the power, authority and jurisdiction in relation to the impugned order under challenge in the writ petitions. In the instant case the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the petitioner in connection with the order passed by the respondent no.4 under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
In view of my above findings I hold that the Single Bench of the High Court cannot entertain the grievance of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to specific bar under Section 8 of the W. B. Land Tribunal Act. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed.
(R. K. Bag, J.)