ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) THE question, which has fallen for consideration in this case, is whether an original application to the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal) is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under the West Bengal Land reforms Act.

( 2 ) AN O. A. No. 2832 of 2001 was filed before the said Tribunal challenging the order of vesting passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Officer under section 49 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'said Act' ). The Tribunal held that the filing of such an application has been made in clear contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal Act') and that, it had no jurisdiction to admit the said application and such the application is to be summarily rejected under section 10 (4) of the Tribunal Act and the tribunal rejected the application. While so rejecting, the Tribunal has recorded an order to the effect that the application has been filed (a) without exhausting remedial measures provided under the said Act and (b) the applicant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the remedial measures are inadequate or availing of such measures will cause undue hardship to the applicant. The said order of the Tribunal dated 28. 01. 2002 has been challenged before us.

( 3 ) THE material facts of the case are noted below-the petitioner claims that he got a 'raiyati' patta in respect of 2. 28 acres of land of Plot No. 1/413 under Kalyalchak Mouza within the Khejuri Police Station in the district of Midnapore. It has been claimed that during the settlement operation, the petitioner has been granted a 'raiyati' patta in respect of the said Plot of land. According to the petitioner, animosity developed between the petitioner and the private respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and as the private respondents threatened to evict the petitioner, he was compelled to file on 10. 11. 94 a suit, being Title Suit No. 299 of 1994. The petitioner's further claims that during the pendency of the said suit, he was illegally dispossessed from the said plot of land and by an amendment petition filed in the said suit, the petitioner prayed for recovery of possession of the land in question from the private respondents. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said suit, the, private respondent Nos. 5 to 10 filed an application under section 49 (2) of the said Act alleging therein that the 'patta' was obtained by the petitioner illegally and the prayer was made for cancellation of 'patta'. The said proceedings for cancellation of 'patta' was numbered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 1995. The petitioner filed a written objection in the said case. The petitioner's further case is that, in the meantime, the Civil Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in respect of "ka" schedule (sic) property after directing eviction of the defendants who are private respondents herein as they were found to be trespassers. Against the said decree and judgement, no appeal was preferred by the defendants. Immediately thereafter, in the said Misc. Case, the petitioner filed a petition stating that since the settlement of the land, the same is in his possession, there is no reason for cancellation of 'patta'.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, according to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner came to learn of the order of the Revenue Officer annulling the 'raiyati patta'. The petitioner then obtained the certified copy of the said order. From the certified copy of the said order, the petitioner found that the Revenue Officer in passing the order by annulling the 'patta' relied upon the report submitted by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that against the said order passed under section 49 (2)of the said Act, a right of appeal is statutorily prescribed u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document