Kumaresh Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

Despite service, none appears for the private respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby there was deemed refusal of the ad interim prayer for injunction made by the petitioner before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in connection with an original application.

In the original application, the petitioner has challenged a notice of show cause as to why the patta granted to the writ petitioner in the year 1989 under Section 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1995 Act”) should not be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although the Tribunal recorded that no affidavit-of-service was filed before the Tribunal, an affidavit was actually filed, although no service had yet been affected.

More importantly, it is argued that the Tribunal, under Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1997”), has ample power, if urgency is made out, to grant ad interim injunction even in the absence of the respondents.

Secondly, the show cause notice which has been challenged before the Tribunal is ex facie illegal since it does not disclose the specific alleged violation by the writ petitioner, entailing cancellation of the petitioner’s patta.

It is submitted that under Section 49 of the 1955 Act, a patta can be cancelled only if fraud was played in getting such patta and/or the subject property is transferred, neither of which is satisfied in the present case.

Accordingly, it is argued that the Tribunal ought to have granted interim orders protecting the petitioner’s peaceful possession from the private respondents, who are trying to construct a Durga Puja pandal for the upcoming Durga Puja festival, as well as stay of all further proceedings of cancellation of patta.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that although the Tribunal has power under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1997 to grant ad interim protection in the absence of the respondent, a case has to be categorically made out for such purpose.

It is not evident from the impugned order that any prayer for ad interim protection was pressed.

Moreover, in the event the Tribunal records that affidavit-of-service was not filed, it was for the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal pointing out that the said finding was erroneous, if at all.

From the pleadings in the original application, we find that there is ample allegation that the private respondents are trying to disrupt the peaceful possession of the petitioner, who is admittedly a patta holder (at least till such patta is cancelled in due process of law) and that the private respondents damaged and destroyed several mango trees, saplings and other plants and seasonal vegetables cultivated and raised by the petitioner upon the patta land, causing substantial loss, injury and prejudice to the petitioner.

Furthermore, the illegalities of the impugned notice and the connected proceedings have also been pleaded in the original application, thus furnishing the rudimentary factual framework entitling the petitioner to get ad interim protection.

Even without going into the question as to whether any affidavit-of-service was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal or not and/or actual service was effected on the respondents before the impugned order was passed, we find that the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in not even considering the ad interim prayer of the petitioner, made in the original application.

We are prima facie satisfied that an ad hoc protection ought to be granted to the petitioner in the light of the infirmities pointed out in the impugned notice and the connected proceedings as well as evident from the averments made against the private respondents in the original application.

However, such protection proposed to be granted by us would be ad hoc in nature enabling, the Tribunal to decide on merits the ad interim prayers of the writ petitioner.

Accordingly, WPLRT No. 168 of 2026 is disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated July 2, 2026 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Fourth Bench, in OA 1362 of 2026 (LRTT) to the effect that all further proceedings in Case No. 01/Anl/Ise/2026 shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks from date. The private respondents and/or their men and agents shall also remain restrained by an order of injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession to the petitioner and/or seeking to enter upon the subject property or alter the nature and character thereof in any manner, also for a period of three weeks from date.

The Tribunal shall, on the basis of a server copy of this order, coupled with a communication by the learned Advocate for either party, adjudicate on the ad interim prayers made by the petitioner in connection with OA 1362 of 2026 (LRTT) positively within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal.

If, by any chance, the aforesaid timeline for adjudicating on the ad interim prayer cannot be adhered to for some unforeseen reasons by the Tribunal, it will be open to the petitioner to seek extension of the interim order granted by us before the Tribunal, by deeming the same to have been passed by the Tribunal.

However, we amply make it clear that all questions are left open to be decided independently by the Tribunal at all stages, including at the ad interim stage and further subsequent stages of the original application, without being unduly influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by us.

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.