AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short “learned Tribunal”) reviewed its earlier order dated September 28, 2022, whereby the learned Tribunal had held that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing an original application by the writ petitioners, was redundant.
In the said order dated September 28, 2022, the learned Tribunal had recorded that an application is maintainable before the Tribunal alleging inaction on the part of any Revenue Authority, but there is no limitation for making such application alleging inaction.
The learned Tribunal further held that when any matter is disposed of it cannot be treated as inaction on the part of the Revenue Authority and accordingly, it is bound to come under the purview of “appeal” for which there must be some prescribed provision as well as period of limitation.
The learned Tribunal, at such instance, further held that as there is no prescribed period for filing appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Revenue Authority below the rank of Collector; the said condonation application was not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that the review application was filed belatedly. Furthermore, it is contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable per se to an application before the Tribunal.
It is further submitted, by placing reliance on Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others, reported at (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, as well as Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and another, reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, that the scope of review is limited and even if there is an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points, review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure or principles akin thereto is not maintainable.
It is submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and as such, the review application ought to have been dismissed.
Lastly, learned counsel submits that in the event this Court holds on such count against the writ petitioners, this Court may consider the condonation application on merits and allow the same.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, opposes such prayers and submits that an application for review is well maintainable before the learned Tribunal under Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to “the Act of 1997”). It is further pointed out that in the impugned order itself, it was recorded by the learned Tribunal that the writ petitioners had conceded to the prayer for condonation in filing the review application and, as such, the petitioners cannot reopen the issue of condonation of such delay now.
Secondly, it is argued that the initial order of the learned Tribunal was fraught with patent error and as such it came within the purview of the principles under Order XLVII of the Code.
Upon a consideration of the order dated September 28, 2022, we find that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that there was error apparent on the face of the record. Whereas an application before the Tribunal lies within the contours of Section 10 of the Act of 1997 read with Section 6 thereof, the same cannot per se be couched as an appeal, if the appeal is otherwise not maintainable before the Tribunal but before an appellate authority.
In the present case, the original application was filed by way of a Tribunal application within the purview of Sections 6 and 10 of the Act of 1997 and not as an appeal, for the simple reason that a statutory appeal does not lie against the order of the Revenue Officer before the Tribunal. Irrespective of what outcome such application will meet at the ends of the adjudication, fact remains that the application was not an “appeal” within the contemplation of any statute.
Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in recording in the present impugned order that it had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by holding that the condonation application in respect of the original application was not maintainable.
Even otherwise, since the original application is not against any inaction but an order passed by the Revenue Officer, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the original order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Insofar as the delay in filing of the review application is concerned, learned Senior Standing Counsel is justified in arguing that the present writ petitioners themselves had conceded to the condonation application and as such, the said chapter cannot be reopened now.
In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order.
In so far as the argument that the condonation application in respect of the delay in filing the original application should be disposed of on merits by this Court, we are loath to do so, since the adjudication of the condonation application on merits by this Court will rob the parties of a forum of challenge.
Hence, we are not inclined to usurp the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal by deciding such condonation application.
Insofar as the cited judgments are concerned, there is no dispute as regards the proposition that the scope of review is limited. However, since we have observed that the initial order suffered from error apparent on the face of the record, the ratio laid down in the cited judgments is not applicable in the present case.
Accordingly, WPLRT No. 22 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order dated December 24, 2025 passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in MA No. 1162 of 2024 and MA No. 742 of 2025 (LRTT) filed in connection with OA No. 56 of 2019.
In view of the long pendency of the matter, we request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the condonation application on merits pursuant to the impugned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.