Calcutta High Court: In a case revolving around a dispute over land ownership and acquisition, a single-judge bench comprising of Bibek Chaudhuri,* J., held that after the promulgation of the West Bengal Land Reforms, Tenancy and Agricultural Land Tribunal Act, 1997, no order passed under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court issued a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 3 and 4 from encroaching upon the land belonging to the petitioners.
Brief Facts
The deceased acquired through a registered deed of sale dated 04-05-1973. The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased. During his lifetime, the deceased did not record his name in RS Record of Rights. After deceased’s death, the petitioners filed an application before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT) to mutate their names in the Record of Rights. LRTT directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), respondent 5, to dispose of the case within six months. During a field inspection by the BL & LRO, representatives of respondent 3 and 4 raised objections and claimed that the land was acquired by HIDCO and the Irrigation and Waterways Department.
The petitioners alleged that the land was not acquired and that the respondent authorities were encroaching on their land without any right. The petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court seeking relief against respondents 3 and 4, who claimed that the land had been acquired by different government entities.
Moot Point
-
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a proceeding initiated under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act?
-
Was there a delay in filing the writ petition?
-
Whether the land in question was acquired by the State or the respondent authorities?
-
Whether the petitioners’ claims about the land’s ownership are valid?
Court’s Observation
Rejecting the respondents’ contention that the writ petition was not maintainable against proceedings under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the Court observed that the proceeding before the Additional District Magistrate and BL & LRO were not pending, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.
The Court held that there is no delay in filing the writ petition, as the petitioners approached the Court after facing objections during the field inspection. The Court examined the notices and letters presented by both parties and concluded that respondents 3 and 4 had not acquired the land in question.
The court concluded that after the promulgation of the West Bengal Land Reforms, Tenancy and Agricultural Land Tribunal Act, 1997, no order passed under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the part of the land was acquired by the petitioners, and the acquired portion was duly recorded in the ROR, however, the respondent’s claim regarding the other portion’s acquisition by the Irrigation and Waterways Department was questionable. The Court found contradictions in the respondent’s claim of acquiring the land and petitioners’ documents suggested that the land was not acquired. The Court held that the respondent’s claims about the acquired land were contradictory and that the petitioners’ claims of ownership were valid, based on their registered deed of sale.
Court’s Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 3 and 4 from encroaching upon the land belonging to the petitioners. The Court directed all respondents to act immediately to implement the judgment’s observations.
[Enayet Ali Molla v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2354, order dated 14-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui, Counsel for the Respondent 3 and 4;
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Mr. Amartya Pal, Counsel for the State.
