Vivekananda Laha vs The Block Land And Land Reforms Officer & Ors.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

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

The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate authority on the ground that a civil suit was pending at the behest of the private respondent before the Tribunal, that is, the present writ petitioner.

The short backdrop of the matter is that initially the subject plots were recorded in the name of the father of the private parties, namely late Gayanath Laha. On the prayer of the private respondent herein, the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) subsequently mutated the plots in the name of the private respondent on the strength of a gift deed of 1984 executed by said late Gayanath in favour of the present private respondent, namely Satyananda Laha.

Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, that is, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DL & LRO) under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The said appeal was allowed by the DL & LRO by placing reliance on an earlier gift deed of 1974 executed by the self-same donor in favour of the writ petitioner Vivekananda Laha.

While doing so, the DL & LRO came to the finding that in view of the earlier gift deed executed by late Gayanath in favour of Vivekananda, the subsequent gift deed of 1984 in favour of the private respondent Satyananda did not convey any title in the property in favour of the private respondent and accordingly reversed the order of the BL & LRO and directed the mutation proceeding to be heard afresh considering the earlier gift deed in favour of Vivekananda Laha.

The present private respondent, being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, preferred a challenge before the learned Tribunal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.

The learned Tribunal took note of the submission of the present writ petitioner that he had filed a Title Suit, bearing no. 252 of 2025, against the present private respondent, with regard to the self -same property, where the validity of the rival gift deeds of the parties were under contention.

On such premise, the learned Tribunal observed that since the Title Suit is pending, the matter can only be decided by the civil court and unless and until so adjudicated, the quasi judicial authority, that is the appellate authority, ought not to have interfered in such respect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the earlier gift deed in favour of the writ petitioner, the DL and LRO was justified in directing consideration of the said documents and for the BL & LRO to pass appropriate directions for mutation.

Learned counsel for the private respondent controverts such submission and argues that since the present writ petitioner himself has preferred a Title Suit, which is now pending, the matter is sub judice before the civil court and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the BL & LRO awaiting the adjudication by the civil court.

In the present case, we find that it is the writ petitioner who has himself preferred a challenge in respect of title of the parties, on the basis of the dispute as to the rival gift deeds executed by the father of the private parties respectively in favour of the writ petitioner and the private respondent, thereby acknowledging a cloud as regards the title of the parties.

Thus, the matter is now sub judice before a competent civil court, which only has the authority, vested in law, to adjudicate the title of the parties.

In the event there was no title suit pending, the BL & LRO still might have been empowered to look into the two deeds and pass orders of mutation accordingly.

However, since the matter is sub judice before the civil court, that too at the behest of the petitioner himself, unless and until the suit is adjudicated, it will be beyond the scope of the BL & LRO to decid e such issue, which would then be necessary for passing necessary order in the mutation proceeding.

Accordingly, there is no scope of interference of the impugned order.

We make it clear that in the event the writ petitioner ultimately gets a decree in his favour from the competent civil court, it will be open for the writ petitioner to approach the concerned BL & LRO for mutation of the property in his name on the strength of such decree.

In view of the above observations, WPLRT No. 126 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order dated January 9, 2026 passed by the Third Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 3265 of 2025.

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.