Rash Behari Maji & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

The present writ petition has been preferred against an order dated November 20, 2025, passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 2875 of 2014 (LRTT), dismissing Original Application (OA) No. 2875 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioners.

The brief background of the case is that the petitioners challenged an order of vesting dated August 14, 1991 passed in Case No. 29 of 1991 by way of a writ petition, giving rise to CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996. A learned Single Judge of this court, vide judgment and order dated September 24, 1996, disposed of the writ petition by holding that in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated July 26, 1996, passed in Appeal from Original Order No. 400 of 1992 (Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti Vs. State of West Bengal), the writ petitioners or their vendors need not file any return in Form No. 7AA and as such the impugned notice as well as the proceeding started under Section 14T(3) read with 14T(10) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short, “the 1955 Act”) stand quashed, directing further that if any return in Form No. 7AA has already been filed and if any order of vesting has been passed on such return, that would also not be given effect to and that too would stand quashed.

The State of West Bengal challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 24, 1996 passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, by way of an appeal bearing MAT No. 3472 of 1997, which was dismissed on November 13, 2003, thereby affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed a representation on December 15, 2010, seeking implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge, as merged in the Appellate Court’s judgment. However, upon drawing a blank on such front, the petitioners filed Original Application (OA) No. 2875 of 2014 for implementation of the order of this court dated September 24, 1996, passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996. The matter was kept pending for more than 12 years and was ultimately disposed of by the present impugned judgment dated November 20, 2025.

While dismissing the OA, the Tribunal declared that no direction can be issued for correction of Records of Rights until disposal of the Bhumijibi batch of matters pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, further observing that the applicant shall be at liberty to revive their claim only upon final decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 16879 of 1996 and connected matters.

It is relevant to mention here that the Division Bench judgment in the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi matter dated July 26, 1996 has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 16879 of 1996, which has subsequently been tagged with SLP (C) No. 1416 of 1997 filed by the Bhumijibi matter itself, as well as other matters where connected issues are involved.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in view of no challenge having been preferred against the order of this court dated September 24, 1996 passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, there was no option open before the Tribunal but to direct implementation of the same. It is contended that mere pendency of a challenge against the parent judgment of Paschim Banga Bhumijibi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot deter the Tribunal or this Court from applying the principle laid down in the Division Bench judgment delivered in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi, which is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In support of such contention, learned counsel cites Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others, reported at (2023) 14 SCC 782, and Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul and another, reported at (2013) 2 SCC 41.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, contends that the order dated September 24, 1996 passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996 is a “derivative” order, passed solely by reliance on the Division Bench judgment in the Paschim banga Bhumijibi case, without any independent adjudication regarding computation of ceiling.

It is further pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in IA no. 3 dated March 20, 1998, passed in connection with Civil Appeal No. 16879 of 1996, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. Again, in SLP No. 1416 of 1997, another challenge preferred in connection with the said matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also directed status quo regarding possession to be maintained with respect to the members of the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Sangha, who were the original petitioners therein.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel points out that several orders have been passed in connection with the bunch of matters tagged with the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including status quo orders regarding possession.

Thus, it is contended that in view of the matter being sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench judgment in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi being stayed, the derivative order on the basis thereof, passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, cannot be implemented and that the learned Tribunal was justified in staying its hands in that regard.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel seeks to take the court through the legislative history of the amendment which led to the Division Bench judgment in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi (supra) in the context of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (in short, “the 1981 Act’) and seeks to rely on several judgments to assail the propositions laid down in Division Bench judgment rendered in Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal, reported at (1996) 2 Cal LJ 285 on merits.

Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we frame the following questions to be decided in the present writ petition:

The above questions are resolved as follows:

Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti (supra)^{22.Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal, reported at (1996) 2 Cal LJ 285.}, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court denudes the said judgment of its effect as a binding precedent

Certain cardinal concepts of law come into play while deciding this issue.

First, an order of stay cannot be equated with the setting aside of the impugned judgment. The effect of stay of operation by a superior forum is that the impugned order is merely put in a state of suspended animation and is not obliterated altogether.

Secondly, an order of stay in an action in personam operates between the parties to the proceeding and not against the whole world at large akin to a judgment in rem.

Thirdly, a judgment of a Division Bench of a High Court has binding effect as a precedent on co-ordinate Benches downward in judicial hierarchy by dint of Article 215, read with Article 226, of the Constitution of India. Such precedential value remains intact insofar as a binding legal precedent, even if the operative part of the judgment is stayed between the parties by a superior forum. The distinction between the effect of a stay inter se the parties to the said litigation and the general operation of the ratio decidendi of the said judgment as a precedent has to be kept in mind.

Thus, mere stay of operation of the Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti (supra)^{33.Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal, reported at (1996) 2 Cal LJ 285.} decision does not denude its effect as a binding precedent in general, although such stay precludes the parties to the self-same litigation from relying on the same and/or seeking implementation thereof.

batch of matters in the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a valid ground for Courts to stay their hands in all related matters involving issues under consideration in the said batch of matters

It is well-settled that mere pendency of a challenge before a superior forum does not per se operate as stay. Irrespective of whether any stay is granted, the pendency of a challenge before a superior forum does not automatically derogate the precedential value of the impugned judgment, unless the same is actually set aside. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Kumar Rai (supra)^{44.Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others, reported at (2023) 14 SCC 782} and in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (supra)^{55.Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul and another, reported at (2013) 2 SCC 41}, that mere pendency of a consideration of certain questions/reference by a Larger Bench does not mean that the last judgment holding the field, on the issue which is under reference, cannot be followed. Judicial propriety, it was observed in Rajnish Kumar Rai (supra)⁴, does not permit ignoring the ratio laid down by a co-ordinate Bench in the judgment from which the matter is referred to a Larger Bench.

Following such principle, the mere pendency of the issues involved in Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti (supra)^{66.Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal, reported at (1996) 2 Cal LJ 285.} before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not automatically preclude the High Courts or other subordinate Courts from acting on the judgment rendered therein as a binding precedent. Thus, Courts are not required to stay their hands in all related matters involving similar issues merely due to such pendency.

14172 (W) of 1996, as affirmed in appeal, loses its force automatically in view of the pendency of the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Sangha matter in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the said order was passed on the basis of the Division Bench judgment in Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Sangha

Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, has formulated the coinage “dependent judgment”. However, such concept is unknown to law. Even if an order of the High Court derives strength from, or is passed on the basis of, a Larger Bench decision, such reliance merely forms a part of the ratio and reasoning of the said order.

Such order of the High Court, although relying on a previous judgment of a superior Bench, is an order which is binding on the parties to the said litigation independently, on its own strength, in view of the binding effect of the orders of High Courts within the contemplation of Articles 215, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, as a repository of the Constitutional authority of superintendence over ‘inferior’ Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction, and having the power to issue prerogative writs in the capacity of Courts of Record, its orders are binding on their own strength.

In the absence of a challenge to an order, it is fully binding on the parties to the litigation on its own independent footing as a judgment of Court, irrespective of the pendency of a challenge against the earlier Larger Bench decision on which it is premised.

Thus, the mere fact that a challenge is pending on similar issues as involved in the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Division Bench judgment, on the strength of which the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the order dated September 24, 1996 in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, cannot derogate from the binding effect of the said order on the parties to the litigation in which the order was passed.

It is undisputed that the appeal preferred against the said order itself was dismissed, thereby affirming the said order, and that no further challenge was preferred therefrom. Thus, the order dated September 24, 1996 has attained finality and has to be implemented.

In this context, it would be relevant to refer to an order dated January 11, 2016, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 58 of 2016, staying the operation of a judgment and order dated October 13, 2015, passed in WP.LRT. No. 184 of 2015 and directing the matter to be tagged with CA No. 16879 of 1996 (Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Case). The State has referred to the said order to impress upon this Court that the same was passed in the context of a challenge against an order passed in WP.LRT. No. 184 of 2015, which was preferred under similar circumstances as in the present case, complaining of inaction on the part of the respondent-Authorities in implementing the order passed in CO No. 13722 (W) of 1996 dated September 13, 1996, where a learned Single Judge of this Court, also on the basis of the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi Division Bench judgment, had directed quashing of all proceedings under Sections 14T(3) and 14T(10) of the 1955 Act. Thus, the premise of the said order, which has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was similar to the order dated September 24, 1996, passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996.

However, with deepest respect, the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said challenge binds the litigants to the said proceeding and not the present writ petitioners. Moreover, the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on January 11, 2016 does not adjudicate any issue but is merely an one-liner granting stay of operation of the order impugned therein. Thus, the said order, per se, is not a binding precedent, in the absence of any ratio decidendi therein. Hence, such order cannot be cited to stay the hands of the writ petitioners in the present case or preclude them from seeking implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge in the present matter or prevent the respondent-Authorities from implementing such order. The aforesaid order was passed in connection with a different writ petition, although under similar circumstances. Thus, despite the similarity of causes of action, the said order does not, in any manner, affect the present writ petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in dismissing the OA filed by the writ petitioners, for implementation of the order passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, merely on the ground of pendency of the Paschim Banga Bhumijibi batch of matters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Since the said order of the learned Single Judge remains unassailed and has attained finality, there cannot be any impediment to the writ petitioners seeking implementation of the same.

Thus, WP.LRT. No. 76 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated November 20, 2025 passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in OA No. 2875 of 2014 (LRTT).

Consequentially, OA No. 2875 of 2014 (LRTT) is allowed, directing the respondents to immediately implement the order dated September 24, 1996, passed in CO No. 14172 (W) of 1996, and to effect the necessary consequential corrections to the Records of Rights in terms thereof, as per the representation dated December 15, 2010 given by the writ petitioners to the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

I agree.