Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Narayan Chandra Pramanick & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 June, 2016
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1 20.06.2016
srm C.O.L.R.T. No. 8 of 2015 Narayan Chandra Pramanick & Anr.
Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das ...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Mr. Somnath Naskar ...for the State.
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order dated July 24, 2015 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in connection with a Miscellaneous Application No.832 id 2012 arising out of O.A. No.1752 od 2011 (LRTT). The above miscellaneous application was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case we find that the petitioners filed an original application before the learned Tribunal with a prayer for a direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mathurapur-II, District-24-Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the said BL&LRO) for correction of record of rights in respect of a plot of land. The sheet anchor of the petitioners 2 was a decree dated June 5, 1975 passed by a Court of Second Munsif at Diamond Harbour in T.S. No.320 of 1975.
The learned Tribunal disposed of the above application by an order dated September 15, 2011 with a direction upon the said BL&LRO to dispose of the application of the petitioners within a period specified in the above order. Since the application of the petitioners was not disposed of by the said BL&LRO within the time framed by the learned Tribunal the petitioners filed the miscellaneous application under reference for initiation of a contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act on the ground of wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
During the pendency of the above miscellaneous application the BL&LRO rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the land in question had been vested to the State Government.
The learned Tribunal dismissed the above application of the petitioners with the observation that there was hardly any scope to examine the legality and validity of the order passed by the said BL&LRO in respect of the application of the petitioners in an application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act.
We do not find any substance in the submissions made by Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that it was not open for the said BL&LRO to reject their application ignoring the decree 3 passed by a Civil Court in connection with a land in question. As a result, there was wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. We are of the opinion that at no point of time the learned Tribunal directed the said BL&LRO to correct the record of rights in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court. We agree with the view of the learned Tribunal that in the event the petitioners were aggrieved by the order passed by the said BL&LRO it was open for them to approach the appropriate forum of law in respect of fresh cause of action which had arisen as a result of the order passed by the said BL&LRO.
The above settled principle of law has been decided in the matter of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. reported in (1996)6 SCC 291.
Reliance is placed by Mr. Das on the decision of State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Aswinin Kumar Baliar Singh reported in (2008)6 SCC 759 as also an unreported judgment dated January 22, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Pramatha Nath Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: WPLRT No.576 of 2006).
So far as the first judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Aswini Kumar Baliar Singh (supra) is concerned the principle of law in dealing with an application under the Contempt of Courts Act was discussed. The above principle has no manner of application in this case. 4
So far as the decision of Pramatha Nath Das (supra) is concerned, we find that there was a mandatory direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to correct the record of rights in favour of the petitioner in view of the earlier judgment passed in his favour in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case there was no such direction of any Court of law in favour of the petitioners passed in connection with a proceeding on an earlier occasion. Therefore, the above decision does not help the petitioners in anyway.
In view of the above, this application is misconceived and the same is dismissed.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. ) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)