AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
The affidavit-of-service in respect of MAT No. 1259 of 2026, filed today, be kept on record.
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants to file affidavit-of-service in respect of MAT No. 1260 of 2026 during the course of the day.
The present appeal, bearing MAT No. 1259 of 2026, has been preferred against an order whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of a challenge before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”).
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that there are several exceptional circumstances in the case which justified interference by the Writ Court despite the availability of an alternative remedy. For example, it is contended that although a similar notice issued under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”) on an earlier occasion by the respondent authorities was ultimately set aside by the Writ Court, the current challenge against a notice in respect of the selfsame land and under the selfsame provision was turned down by the impugned order.
It is submitted that in view of violation of the principles of natural justice in not giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as contemplated in Section 4C of the 1955 Act, the Writ Court had ample jurisdiction to decide the writ petition on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that on the earlier occasion, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was categorically raised before the then learned Single Judge but still the learned Single Judge interfered by entertaining the writ petition.
In the present instance, however, the learned Single Judge refuse d to abide by the said dictum laid down in the earlier writ petition by a co-ordinate Bench on the ground that the previous judgment was per incuriam insofar as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned.
Learned counsel submits that it is settled law that even a co-ordinate Bench is bound by an earlier judgment delivered by a Bench of similar strength.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge was not sitting in appeal over the judgment passed by the earlier Writ Court and, as such, acted de hors jurisdiction in holding that the earlier judgment was per incuriam.
After carefully considering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, we find that it may very well be that the observation in the present impugned judgment, to the effect that the earlier order allowing the writ petition on an earlier occasion by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was per incuriam, is erroneous.
We say so because although the point of maintainability was raised in the earlier occasion, the Writ Court had not specifically decided the same. Thus, no ratio decidendi as to maintainability of the writ petition was laid down at all on the earlier occasion by the Writ Court in its judgment dated May 29, 2023. As such, the question of the earlier judgment being per incuriam does not arise at all.
We also take note of the fact that it is well-settled that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not absolutely barred merely due to availability of an alternative remedy.
The question here, however, is not of maintainability of the writ petition but of entertainability of the same.
It is equally well-settled that when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the challenger, it is open to the Writ Court either to entertain the same in exceptional circumstances or to refuse to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of such equally efficacious alternative remedy.
Since, by the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge chose one of such recourses by holding that the writ petition is not entertainable, giving opportunity to the appellant to approach before the Tribunal, we do not find any scope of interfering with such judicial discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge within the limited scope of an intra-court appeal; more so, since a writ petition lies against an order of the Tribunal before a Division Bench of this Court whereas the writ petition in the present case was filed directly before a learned Single Judge.
The points of violation of natural justice as well as other issues raised in the writ petition in the present instance can very well be raised before the Tribunal as well within the contemplation of Sections 6 and 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997.
Thus, we do not find any scope of interference with the impugned order.
Accordingly, MAT 1259 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, retaining the liberty granted by the Writ Court to the appellant to prefer a challenge against the selfsame notice under Section 4C of the 1955 Act before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
We make it clear that neither any observation made above nor any observation made by the Writ Court shall be construed to be conclusive adjudication on the merits of the matter. It will be open to the learned Tribunal to decide all issues in accordance with law.
In view of the above, MAT No. 1260 of 2026, which arises under similar circumstances but in respect of a different plot of land, is also disposed of with similar observations as rendered in MAT No. 1259 of 2026.
The applications bearing CAN 1 of 2026 filed in both the appeals are also disposed of consequentially.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.