The Tribunal cannot entertain an application where the petitioner has not availed of all the remedial measures under the statute in question.

Altamas Kabir, J.

Shri Rathindra Nath Pati, the Secretary of the petitioner society, moved the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 2807 (L. R.T. T.) purporting to challenge the notices issued by the Revenue Officer, Contai Block-I, in Misc. Case Nos. 59 and 60 of 2000. The notices were issued by the said Revenue Officer under section 50 read with section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on two separate applications made by one Shri Sasanka Sekhar Pattanayak and Shri Debabrata Jana and Others. By his application Shri Pattanayak prayed for recording his name as possessor of plot No. 315 of Mouza-Athilagari, P.S. Contai, District Midnapur, under the ownership of the petitioner society. By the other application, Shri Debabrata Jana and Others prayed for recording their easement right of passage over a portion of the aforesaid plot also under the ownership of the petitioner society.

2. As will appear from the order sheets in respect of the said two cases annexed to the writ petition, both the cases were allowed by the Revenue Officer concerned and directions were given that the possession of Shri Pattanayak be recorded along with easement right of pathway as claimed by Shri Debabrata Jana and Others. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 22nd February, 2001, rejected the application filed by the petitioner society upon holding that the Revenue Officer was within his jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices. However, from the tenor of the order it appears that the fact that the two Misc. Cases had been disposed of had not been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal which gave liberty to the petitioner society to take the points raised by it before the learned Tribunal in the proceedings before the Revenue Officer and if ultimately the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Officer it was given the liberty to challenge the same in appeal under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

3. Appearing in support of the writ application, Mr. Swadesh Ranjan Bhunia submitted that the learned Tribunal had misconstrued the provisions of sub-section (3) section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 and had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under section 6(1) of the said Act. Mr. Bhunia submitted that section 6(1) of the aforesaid Act empowered the Tribunal to entertain applications against original orders passed by any authority under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, including the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Furthermore, it also empowered the learned Tribunal to interfere in matters of inaction or culpable negligence on the part of the authorities under the concerned statutes.

4. Mr. Bhunia submitted that the learned Tribunal also misunderstood the scope of section 50 of the 1955 Act which did not empower a Revenue Officer to decide question of title as had been done by the Revenue Officer in the present case. According to Mr. Bhunia, instead of directing the petitioner society to prefer a statutory appeal, the learned Tribunal ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 6 of the 1997 Act to correct the error committed by the Revenue Officer concerned.

5. Mr. Bhunia urged that although sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 10, imposes in absolute bar on the Tribunal in admitting an application without the petitioner having availed of the alternative remedies under the Act, sub-clause (b) would have to be read along with sub-clause (a) and it must be held that sub-clause (b) carves out two exceptions to sub-clause (a) when the remedial measure is not adequate or causes hardship.

6. Mr. Bhunia submitted that it could not be contended that, unless all the remedial measures were availed of, the Tribunal would not be entitled to admit an application. On the other hand, in order to give a harmonious construction to the provisions of section 10, the Tribunal should have also conside