Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manowara Bewa vs The State Of West on 30 October, 2017
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1 12 30.10.17
W.P.L.R.T.237 of 2014 (C.A.N. 8424 of 2014) MANOWARA BEWA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee ..for the petitioner Mr. Chandi Charan De..ld.Addl.G.P. Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay ..for the State In re : C.A.N. 8424 of 2014 Let the affidavit of service be kept on record. Considering the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, we find that there is no necessity for passing further order in connection with the application bearing no. C.A.N. 8424 of 2014 and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order dated May 11, 2012 passed in the matter of Md. Sarif Ali @ Md. Sariff & Ors. (In re: O.A. 3576 of 2011 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench.
Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, we find that the above original application was filed before the learned Tribunal without making the petitioner as party to the above proceeding. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the prima facie opinion that she is the party interested to the above proceeding. Therefore, the rules of principles of natural justice have been violated in disposing of the above original application by the learned Tribunal without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With regard to the question of steps to be taken by the petitioner in the above circumstances for redressal of her grievance has already been 2 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) was the presiding judge in the matter of Biswajit Jana Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016(3)CHN (Cal) 538 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below :-
"12. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it was open for the writ petitioner to avail of the following three options to protect his interest which might have been affected by the order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT) without impleading him as a party.
(i)To file an appropriate application in the above original application;
(ii)To file an independent original application; or
(iii)An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the appropriate Division Bench of this High Court assailing the aforesaid order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT).
13. Therefore, there was no bar and/or impediment for the learned Tribunal to entertain the original application bearing O.A. No.1931 of 2014 (LRTT), as one of the options available to the writ petitioner had been chosen by him. The learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the above original application by virtue of the order impugned granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file an application for recalling of the order dated March 19, 2014 passed in O.A. No.3812 of 2013 (LRTT) which was one of the aforesaid options, as discussed hereinabove.
14. It is necessary to observe that in the event of availing of the opportunity of the above third option, 3 generally, the High Court is to send the matter back to the learned Tribunal after setting aside the order impugned. If it is prima-facie found that the writ petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, then the same is the appropriate forum to consider the matter afresh as a court of first instance after addition of the aforesaid party to the proceeding."
In view of the above settled proposition of law, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal in the light of the observations made in the decision of Biswajit Jana(Supra) and in that event the learned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the above original application expeditiously in accordance with law.
This writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) 4 5