Puspa Mondal vs Gour Chandra Koley & Ors

This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated September 27, 2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby an original application [O.A. 2545 of 2014 (LRTT)] presented by the first respondent herein was allowed and a remand was ordered for fresh hearing of Homestead Case No. 1 of 2014 by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Singur, Hooghly (hereafter the 'BL & LRO).

The first respondent herein had moved the tribunal challenging an order dated May 02, 2014 passed by the BL & LRO whereby the claim of the petitioner under section 4 read with section 7 of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (hereafter the '1975 Act') as well as for correcting the record of rights in her favour was allowed. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Ms. Ghosh Dey, learned advocate has raised the following contentions:

(i) the tribunal erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in entertaining the original application, which was directed against the order dated May 02, 2014, despite the fact that the original applicant had not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal made available by section 9 of the 1975 Act; and

(ii) the order of the BL & LRO sufficiently and clearly takes into consideration all the points that were available to be raised by the parties and actually raised and the finding returned by the BL & LRO that the petitioner is entitled to relief, not being perverse or legally infirm on any count, the tribunal ought not to have interfered with such finding.

Ms. Ghosh Dey invited our attention to the opinion of Hon'ble Ajay Nath Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was) in F.M.A. 706 of 1998 : Samir Talapatra & Ors. vs. Gurupada Dey & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) CHN 586 to contend that even if the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer acts as a Collector, there is no bar for an authority, superior to such Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, to act as the appellate authority. According to her, such decision of His Lordship, which was rendered as the referee Judge, was binding on the tribunal and a grave failure of justice was occasioned by it by not rejecting the original application.

Appearing on behalf of the first respondent, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate drew our attention to an order dated November 17, 2014 passed by a coordinate Bench while disposing of W.P.L.R.T. 346 of 2014 : Sri Gour Chandra Koley vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. He contended that in course of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, learned advocate appearing for the present petitioner had raised an objection to the maintainability of O.A. 2545 of 2014 (LRTT) before the tribunal on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy. The coordinate Bench overruled such objection and for the reasons assigned in its order held that the petitioner before it could not have challenged the order of the BL & LRO dated May 02, 2014 in an appeal since the BL & LRO was acting as the Collector. It is the further contention of Mr. Banerjee that the present petitioner not having challenged the order dated November 17, 2014 before the Apex Court, the same attained finality inter partes and the tribunal was right in holding the original application to be maintainable having regard to such order of the coordinate Bench.

Mr. Banerjee also contended that the BL & LRO proceeded in breach of natural justice by relying on certain reports without furnishing the same to the first respondent. The order under challenge, according to Mr. Banerjee, did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

We shall deal with the contention regarding entertainability of the original application by the tribunal, first. Whatever might have been held by the learned Judge in Samir Talapatra (supra), the same is not material for a decision by us for the simple reason that such decision had not been placed for consideration of the coordinate Bench on November 17, 2014 when it proceeded to consider and dispose of W.P.L.R.T. 346 of 2014 on contest. The decision given by the coordinate Bench in a proceeding where the present petitioner was the third respondent, as correctly urged by Mr. Banerjee, is binding inter partes and having regard to the principle of finality of decisions, it was not open to the tribunal to take a different view of the matter despite the decision in Samir Talapatra (supra) having been placed before it.

We thus hold that the objection to the maintainability of the original application before the tribunal is misconceived and the tribunal was right in overruling it.

Insofar as the contention on merits is concerned, we find that the BL & LRO had taken into consideration several reports submitted by Revenue Inspectors. One of the contentions raised before us is that the reports were not furnished to the first respondent. It is also not clear from the order of the BL & LRO as to whether the present petitioner had constructed any tile shed prior to 1975 or as to whether her grandmother, Smt. Champabati Devi, had constructed a tile shed prior to 1975. Although the tribunal in the impugned judgment has not specified which, according to it, are "sufficient ground left uncovered by B.L. & L.R.O", we are of the opinion that a decision must be given afresh by the BL & LRO upon ensuring that whatever documents are sought to be relied on by the present petitioner in the proceeding before it are supplied beforehand to the first respondent and vice-versa.

The judgment and order impugned is upheld. We direct that after complying with the rules of natural justice and upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing, the BL & LRO shall proceed to give a fresh decision in accordance with law.

It is made abundantly clear that the BL & LRO shall not look into any document produced by either of the parties at the time of hearing unless copy thereof is served to his/her adversary. An appropriate reasoned order shall be passed by the BL & LRO while disposing of Homestead Case No. 1 of 2014.

If the BL & LRO wishes to look into any document in his custody, the same shall be shared with the parties.

Having regard to the lapse of time since the present petitioner first lodged her claim, we hope and trust that the BL & LRO shall not leave any stone unturned to decide the proceeding as early as possible but positively within three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Needless to observe, we have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and all points are left open to be urged by the parties before the BL & LRO for his decision, as aforesaid, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.