Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
141/2011 on 1 September, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
1
1.9.2011 W.P.L.R.T. 141 of 2011
ks
Mr. Bratindra Narayan Ray,
Ms. Priyanka Das
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Md. Galib
... For the State.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Assailing the order dated 16th March, 2011 passed by the West Bengal
Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.3140 of 2008 (LRTT) this writ
application has been filed.
Impugned order reads such:
ORDER
-------------
"16.03.2011.
We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and he Ld. Government Representative.
In this case the present petitioner apparently challenged the order passed by the Revenue Officer dated 05.09.2007 in connection with Misc. Case No.1/BR/UKH/2007 u/s. 57 read with section 6(1) of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.
It is the plea of the present petitioner that a vesting case was originally initiated in the 60's and thereafter this new proceeding was started in the year 2007 behind the back of the present petitioner as the petitioner did not receive any notice.
It is the further plea of the present petitioner that the said order is palpably illegal and as such the petitioner approached this forum for getting the remedy.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. Government Representative.
Admittedly the order dated 05.09.2007 passed by the Revenue Officer is one u/s 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and the said order was final.
Law clearly provides that remedy lies by preferring appeal against the order.2
However, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention that as the petitioner did not receive any notice, the question of filing of appeal in time does not arise.
We have considered the pleas as raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. Government Representative.
Even assuming the fact that the question of limitation came to the knowledge of the petitioner for the fist time today, the petitioner must approach the Appellate Authority against the order impugned and he must file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any.
If such application us/ 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, that should be considered favourably considering the plea taken by the petitioner that the said order was passed behind the back of the present petitioner.
In view of the said position this case is disposed of with liberty to the present petitioner to approach the appellate authority to get the remedy.
The O.A. No.3140 of 2008(LRTT) is thus disposed of accordingly. ............"
Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State both submit that there is no provision of appeal but the learned Tribunal below has observed to that effect. However, from the order of the learned Tribunal below it does not appear about the particular provision by which appeal is maintainable. In that angle, order is not a reasoned order specifying the particular provision of the law and remedy of the writ petitioner. Considering that aspect, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for re-hearing and to pass a reasoned order identifying the appeal provision, if any and if there is no provision of appeal as submitted by the learned Advocates, the learned Tribunal will decide the matter on merit and will pass a reasoned decision. 3 Writ application is disposed of by the aforesaid terms.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) (Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)