AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioners to rectify the prayer portion of the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is limited.
The entry against the subject plot initially appeared in the RS records as “Bagan”. However, subsequently the same was altered in the LR records of rights to “Khelar Math”.
When the petitioners approached the concerned Revenue Officer (BL & LRO) for correction of the records, by an order dated September 13, 2012, the BL & LRO rejected such application on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the BL & LRO to correct the records of right as per law and rules without any conversion proceeding.
An appeal was preferred against the same.
However, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said order, giving rise to a challenge before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and order, disposed of such application by quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer as well as the Appellate Authority; however, a liberty was given to the petitioners to file appropriate application under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short “the 1955 Act”) in prescribed format before the DL & LRO, Hooghly within one month from the date of obtaining certified copy of the order and in the event of filing such application, the DL & LRO, Hooghly was directed to dispose of the same within 60 days thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the orders of the Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Officer being set aside, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted liberty to the petitioners to apply not under Section 4C of the 1955 Act but for correction of the records of rights, upon which the concerned Revenue Officer ought to have been directed to correct the records of right accordingly.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State.
It transpires that the Revenue Officer (BL & LRO) rejected the application for correction of records of right made by the petitioners on an erroneous ground.
The grievance of the petitioners was not that the petitioners sought to convert the nature of the land but that the recording of the nature of user of the land in the LR records of rights was erroneously made, which tantamounts to a revision of the records of right without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to the persons interested, including the petitioners.
It is further submitted that there was no basis for making such alteration in the LR records of rights.
Upon hearing learned counsel, we find that the relevant provision, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the State, is Section 51B of the 1955 Act, under which any Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf may, either on an application or on his own motion, at any stage of revision or preparation of the records of rights under the concerned Chapter but before final publication of any such records of rights, revise or correct any entry in such records of rights after giving the persons interested an opportunity of being heard and after recording the reasons therefor.
In the present case, we do not find any such exercise having taken place.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, in whose name the concerned plot is recorded, nor do we find any order, reasoned or unreasoned, being placed before any of the authorities regarding such alteration.
Moreover, the circumstances of the present case are not covered under Section 4C of the 1955 Act, which contemplates a raiyat holding any land to apply to the Collector for change of area or character of such land or for conversion of the same for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled.
In the present case, since the petitioners do not want any such conversion but just the reverse, that is, correction of the records of right to restore the previous user/nature of the land, the invocation of Section 4C and the liberty granted thereunder by the Tribunal were misconceived.
The appropriate direction would be for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the BL & LRO for the purpose of a fresh consideration of the petitioners’ application for correction of the entries in the records of rights.
Accordingly, WPLRT 142 of 2026 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated September 4, 2025, passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.2840 of 2016 (LRTT) as well as the orders passed by the respondent no.4 dated September 13, 2012 in Miscellaneous Case No.91 of 2012 and the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the same, and directing respondent no.4 herein, that is, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Singur, to adjudicate the petitioners’ application for correction of the records of right afresh on merits, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all interested persons, including the petitioners and the State, and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the respondent no.4.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
I agree.