Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And Manik Mohan Sarkar, JJ.
SADHU RAM RUIDAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T 354 Of 2007
Decided On : 06/18/2007
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT - SECTION 10 - The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to admit any application unless the conditions in Section 10(3) are satisfied. The applicant must exhaust all remedial measures and demonstrate that the available remedies are inadequate or will cause undue hardship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer without notice and in defiance of an order passed by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner approached the Tribunal under Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, alleging violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal did not entertain the petitioner's application as the petitioner had not exhausted all alternative remedies and had not demonstrated that the available remedies were inadequate or would cause undue hardship.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application without the petitioner exhausting all alternative remedies. 2. Whether the petitioner had made out a case of undue hardship or inadequacy of the available remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Act is limited and it cannot admit an application unless the conditions in Section 10(3) are satisfied. 2. The petitioner had not exhausted all alternative remedies, including the right of appeal provided in the statute. 3. The petitioner had not demonstrated that the available remedies were inadequate or would cause undue hardship.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application but directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal if filed within a fortnight, condone the delay, and decide the appeal on merit after examining whether notice was served or an opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant and whether there was any defiance of the Sessions Judge's order.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Goswami, learned Tribunal ought to have entertained the application having regard to the facts and circumstances made out in the application. Mr. Sen has drawn our attention to section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy tribunal Act, 1997 which is quoted as under: "10. Application to Tribunal.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 6 and other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order passed by an Authority or any action taken either by an authority or by the State Government may prefer an appeal to the tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date on which such order was passed or such action was taken, as the case may be, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal for cause shown to its satisfaction, and shall be made in such form, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed.
(3) Save as expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall not admit any application referred to in sub-section (1) unless it is satisfied that- (a) the application has availed of all remedial measures available to him under the relevant specified Act, and (b) the remedial measures available unde the provisions of the relevant specified Act are not adequate or shall cause hardship to the applicant.
(4) The Tribunal may, if it is satisfied after such enquiry as it may deem fit that requirements under this Act and the rules made thereunder are complied with in relation to the application referred to in sub-section (1), admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may reject the application summarily giving reasons therefore.
(5) Where an application under sub-section (1) has been admitted by the Tribunal. It shall decide and dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible, and ordinarily within six months from the dated of such admission or from the date of receipt of records from the concerned Authority or the State Government, as the case may be.
(6) While deciding the application under sub-section (5) the tribunal shall issue such direction, or pass such order, as it may deem fit.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner)shall be made on, or in any proceeding relating to, an application made under sub-section (1) unless- (a) copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are duly furnished seven days in advance to each of the parties against whom such application is made or is proposed to be made: (b) an opportunity of being heard is given to each of the parties against whom such application is made: provided that the Tribunal may pass an interim order as an exceptional measure if it is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss being immediately caused to the applicant: provided further that if the application referred to in sub-section (1) is not decided and disposed of within a period of six months from the date of the interim order, the interim order shall, if it is not vacated earlier, stand vacated on the expiry of the period as aforesaid unless, for special reasons or in the interest of justice, the interim order is varie
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
