AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
The ambit of the challenge is short.
The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal), on an application made by the private respondents, annulled a patta granted to the writ petitioners. While doing so, the learned Tribunal went into the merits of the matter and considered the materials before it and came to the conclusive finding as to the subject plot being a retained land of the private respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application in view of there being a specific forum, that is, the Revenue Officer, under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (the 1955 Act), designated for taking up applications for annulment of patta.
Secondly, the application was made after a long delay from the passing of the order granting patta.
In any event, it is argued that an application before the Tribunal can only be filed after exhausting of the remedies provided in law and, that too, within sixty days of the order.
Having not done so, it is submitted that the private respondents were not entitled to an order in their favour annulling the patta of the petitioners.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits, in his usual fairness, that the matter did not come up before the Tribunal as a challenge against the grant of patta but was filed by the private respondents complaining of inaction by the Revenue Officer (BL & LRO), who sitting tight over the application for annulment of patta made by the private respondents.
As such, it is contended that no forum was bypassed by the private respondents.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioners are justified in arguing that Section 49(2) of the 1955 Act specifically provides the Revenue Officer as the designated statutory forum to annul pattas, either on his own motion or on an application made in that behalf.
In the event the private respondents were aggrieved by the inaction of the BL & LRO in disposing of their application for annulment, the appropriate remedy, as rightly pursued, was complaining of such inaction before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction in conclusively determining the entire dispute on merits without relegating it to the Revenue Officer himself.
Such usurpation of jurisdiction of the designated forum automatically denudes both parties of two forums of challenge; first, the appellate forum, and thereafter, the Tribunal.
Thus, even without going into the question of limitation, since an application complaining of inaction is not strictly governed by the limitation of sixty days, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in conclusively determining the matter by usurping the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer.
In such view of the matter, WPLRT No. 159 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated February 5, 2026 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Third Bench, in OA 3064 of 2022 (LRTT) and remanding the application of the private respondents for annulment of the patta granted in favour of the petitioners to the BL & LRO, Namkhana (the respondent no. 7 herein) for a comprehensive adjudication of the matter on merits in accordance with law, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, including the private respondents, the writ petitioners as well as the State.
It is expected that such exercise shall be concluded as early as possible, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order to the respondent no. 7.
While doing so, the respondent no. 7 shall not be unnecessarily influenced by any of the observations made herein or by the Tribunal.
We make it abundantly clear that the merits of the respective contentions of the parties have not been gone into by this Court, including the question of maintainability and limitation.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.