AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.
The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby, in an apparently innocuous Original Application filed by the private respondent to implement a previous order of the D.L.&L.R.O, the Tribunal directed the B.L. & L.R.O to correct the records of rights incorporating the name of the private respondent in terms of the said order, behind the back of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that it was suppressed before the Tribunal that at the juncture when the impugned order was passed, already a prior application for the self-same relief was pending before the Tribunal, where the present writ petitioners were impleaded. However, during pendency of the previous Original Application, the second application was filed and the impugned order was passed behind the back of the writ petitioners and subsequently, the earlier Original Application was withdrawn.
Learned counsel submits that several issues were to be pointed out to the Tribunal, which necessitated the present writ petitioners to be impleaded and heard by the Tribunal. For example, an appeal had been preferred against the earlier order, which was directed to be implemented by the present impugned order. Moreover, an injunction order was passed in respect of a civil suit where some of the parties were common.
In the absence of the writ petitioners, thus, the impugned order is vitiated.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the contention of the writ petitioners inasmuch as the learned Tribunal overlooked the material suppression on the part of the private respondent to the effect that an earlier Original Application was pending, where the present petitioners were parties and had an opportunity of hearing.
Moreover, the facts of the pendency of a challenge from the order directed to implemented, and/or a subsisting order in a civil suit, as argued by the writ petitioners, were required to be brought to the notice of the Tribunal before the impugned order was passed, directing the compliance of the said earlier order of the B.L. & L.R.O outright.
Accordingly, WPLRT 138 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated October 27, 2025 passed by the Third Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 2560 of 2025 (LRTT) and remanding the matter to the Tribunal with a direction on the private respondent to implead the present writ petitioners as parties to the said Original Application. The learned Tribunal, upon such impleadment and notice being served on the present petitioners, shall, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides, proceed to decide the O.A. 2560 of 2025 (LRTT) afresh on merits.
It is expected that such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as the business of the Tribunal permits.
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.