Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Tapan Kumar Guria & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 August, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
29.08.2018
srm
W.P.L.R.T. No. 44 of 2018
Sri Tapan Kumar Guria & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anil Kumar Jana,
Ms. Rita Patra
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy,
Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee
...for the State.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, ld. Sr. Advocate
Mr. Satyajit Mondal,
Mr. Abhilash Sinha Roy
...for the Respondent No.5.
This application has been filed challenging an order dated April 27, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, in O.A. No.916 of 2017 (LRTT).
By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal refused to pass an interim order of stay of operation of the order passed by the appellate authority dated January 16, 2017 under Section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
In the original application, the order dated January 16, 2017 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 2 1955 and the order dated April 22, 2015 passed by the respondent No.4 under Section 21D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were under challenge.
The contention of the writ petitioners was that they had purchased the suit land from the erstwhile recorded owner in the year 2013. Around September, 2013, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sagar passed an order mutating the names of the petitioners as rayat being in khas possession of the land in question and also directed that separate khatian should be opened in the names of the petitioners.
Around April, 2014, the respondent No.5 and his brother filed a title suit being No.112 of 2014 against Smt. Sulekha Jana in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Diamond Harbour for specific performance of contract for sale and injunction of the suit land on the basis of an agreement executed on September 19, 1990. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the respondent No.5 and his brother in the said suit but the said application for injunction was refused in respect of the selfsame plots of land of which the petitioners claimed to be owners.
The petitioners further submitted that against the order of refusal of ad interim order of injunction a miscellaneous appeal being M.A. No.2 of 2014 was preferred by the respondent No.5 and his brother. Subsequently, the said 3 appeal was dismissed as not pressed on the prayer of the respondent No.5 on September 3, 2014.
It is the further case of the petitioners that the writ petitioners filed title suit being No.286 of 2013 for declaration and injunction against the respondent No.5 and his brother in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakdwip, South 24‐Parganas. In the said title suit, by an order dated December 4, 2013, an ad interim order of injunction was passed in favour of the writ petitioners restraining the defendants in the said suit (respondent No.5 and his brother) from interfering in the right, title and interest in the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect thereof. The said order is still in existence. But, despite the aforesaid order in favour of the writ petitioners, the respondent No.4 by an order dated April 22, 2015, on the basis of an application made by the respondent No.5, recorded the name of the respondent No.5 as bargadar in respect of the plots of land in question in respect of which the writ petitioners claimed right, title and possession.
Aggrieved by the order dated April 22, 2015 passed by the respondent No.4, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the statutory appellate authority under Section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In the course of hearing, the petitioners drew the attention of the appellate authority 4 to the ad interim order of injunction passed in Title Suit No.286 of 2013, whereby the appropriate Civil Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards right, title and possession in respect of the plots of land in question. Despite the above order of status quo, the appellate authority, namely, respondent No.3 affirmed the order dated April 22, 2015 passed by the respondent No.4 and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5 was the bargadar in respect of the plots in question.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated January 16, 2017 passed by the appellate authority under Section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the original application was filed by the petitioners, and a prayer for stay of operation of the aforesaid orders was made.
The learned Tribunal refused to pass an ad interim order of stay of operation of the order of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by coming to a prima facie finding that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal on the necessity for an ad interim order to be passed at that stage.
Upon prima facie considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also upon perusing the order passed in Title Suit No.286 of 2013 as also Title Suit No.112 of 2014 and on being satisfied that there is a subsisting ad interim order by which the parties to the proceedings have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the plots in question which are also subject matter of 5 dispute before the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion, that this is a fit case in which an interim order of stay of operation of the order passed by the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.4 respectively ought to be passed till the disposal of the original application.
In view of the above, the operation of the order passed by the appellate authority, namely, the respondent No.3 on January 6, 2017 under Section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the order dated April 22, 2015 passed by the respondent No.4 under Section 21D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 are stayed till the disposal of the original application.
With the above observation, this writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the hope and trust that the learned Tribunal will dispose of the original application expeditiously.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)