Rasamay Basak & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

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

Despite service, the private respondents are not represented, although the petitioners and the State are represented through counsel.

The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”), while considering an application of the private respondent alleging inaction on the part of the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) in implementing a previous order of the appellate authority, disposed of the matter on merits and directed the BL & LRO to correct the records of rights in terms of the said representation of the private respondents, purportedly in compliance of the order of the appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners points out that after the or der of the appellate authority directing a reopening of the LR records and recording the names of the private respondents, the matter came up before the concerned BL & LRO, who passed an order on January 31, 2024, implementing the order of the appellate authority.

While so passing, the BL & LRO recorded that certain properties recorded in the LR khatian would be recorded in favour of the appellant/present private respondent by opening a new khatian. It was, however, observed further that the other respondents had purchased/been gifted the suit property through registered instruments and such properties were recorded in their respective khatians by producing the registered instruments. It was held that without declaring the registered instruments null and void by the civil court, such records could not be considered in favour of the appellant (present private respondent) and accordingly, the said part of the prayer of implementation was turned down.

It is argued that if the private respondents were aggrieved by the order of the BL & LRO dated January 31, 2024, it was open for the parties to challenge the same before the appellate authority in accordance with law.

However, the second implementation application, after the BL & LRO had already implemented the order of the appellate authority according to his own perception, was not maintainable at all.

Learned counsel appearing for the State points out that apparently the order dated January 31, 2024 passed by the BL & LRO was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

It is submitted that in the event the present writ petitioners are aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal, in connection with which no notice was served on the petitioners, it is always open for them to approach the Tribunal itself for recalling of such order.

However, upon a careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, we find that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was without jurisdiction on two counts.

First, while passing an order on the merits of the representation filed by the private respondents before the BL & LRO, the present petitioners, whose rights would be directly affected by the said judgment, ought to have been given a notice, which was not done.

Secondly, the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction in directing implementation of the order of the appellate authority a second time, after the BL & LRO had, in terms of the direction of the appellate authority, already disposed of the matter by reopening certain LR khatians vide order Dated January 31, 2024.

We acknowledge the fact that either of the parties might have been aggrieved by the interpretation of the order of the appellate authority by the BL & LRO in its order dated January 31, 2024. However, fact remains that the BL & LRO had decided the matter conclusively in terms of the order of the appellate authority in accordance with the legal perception of the BL & LRO, which might have been right or wrong.

Upon such interpretation of the BL & LRO, the self-same order of the appellate authority could not be sought to be re-implemented, without challenging the order of the BL & LRO dated January 31, 2024.

Accordingly, the remedy of the private respondents did not lie in a fresh application for implementation, which was erroneously allowed by the Tribunal, but by preferring a challenge to the order dated January 31, 2024.

In the light of the above observations, WPLRT No. 160 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated October 27, 2025 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, Third Bench, in OA 2560 of 2025 (LRTT). We hereby grant liberty to the private respondents to prefer a properly constituted challenge before the appellate authority in accordance with law against the order dated January 31, 2024 passed by the BL & LRO, Banshihari, Dakshin Dinajpur, which is annexed at page 87 of the present writ petition, subject to limitation and/or condonation of the same.

We make it abundantly clear that if such challenge is preferred, the same will be decided in accordance with law, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, including the writ petitioners and the State.

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.