A Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Article 323 A or 323B of the Constitution of India discharges the function as a court of first instance for adjudication or trial of dispute and applications relating to land reforms and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and other matters arising out of any provision of a specified Act.

This writ application is directed against an order dated March 30, 2015 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal 2nd Bench in the matter of Biswanath Banijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re:- O.A. 3267/2014 (LRTT).

2. The operative portion of the impugned order quoted below:

"Having heard both sides and after perusing the documents on record we see that the present applicants have not made representation before the State respondents for relief as set out in this O.A. although previous owner did make two representations for relief in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in C.R. No. 3259 (W) of 1981. In the circumstances, we dispose of the instant O.A. giving liberty to the applicants to make representation before the O.C. Town Survey Unit, Howrah seeking relief as set out in this O.A. along with all supporting documents within two months from the date of getting certified copy of today's order after taking authorization from the applicant companies.

In the event this is done, O.C. Town Survey Unit, Howrah will consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the interested parties including the recorded bargadars and in case of their death, the legal heirs of recorded bargadars, within six months from the receiving such representation.

Applicant companies are directed to implead all the recorded bargadars as party respondents in this O.A by amending the cause title of this O.A. and to serve copy of the amended O.A. along with today's order upon the O.C. Town Survey Unit, Howrah as well as upon the impleaded party respondents.

O.A. No. 3267/2014 (LRTT) is thus disposed of."

3. It is submitted by Mr. M.K. Das, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order impugned, the respondent no. 4 has been directed to dispose of the representation of the respondent nos. 6 to 14 giving opportunity of hearing to all interested parties including the recorded bargadars within the time schedule mentioned therein.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Das that the writ petitioner is one of the recorded bargadar's of the land in question. He was not a party before the learned Tribunal in the original application. According to Mr. Das, though the matter has not been decided by the learned Tribunal on the merits of the claim of the respondent-applicants/respondent nos. 6 to 14, due to the absence of the petitioner the learned Tribunal was not apprised of the fact that after final publication of the record of rights incorporating the name of the writ petitioner as one of the bargadar's, the respondent no. 4 was not the competent authority to deal with the matter.

5. Mr. Das, prays for setting aside of the order and to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for final adjudication of the matter after making the writ petitioner as a party to the above proceeding.

6. It is submitted by Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, West Bengal, that in view of the judgment dated January 13, 2016 delivered by this Court in the matter of Barun Shome v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re: WPLRT 168 of 2015), there are three options for an aggrieved party to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum in the event an issue involving his interest has already been disposed of by the learned Tribunal in an original application where he has not been made a party.

7. It is also submitted by Mr. Gupta that since the writ petitioner was not a party in the original application under reference which has already been disposed of, and the writ petitioner has availed of the third option by challenging the order of the learned Tribunal before this Court, the only option remains in this matter to decide the issue involved in the original application by the learned Tribunal afresh as a Court of first instance.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Kallol Chowdhury, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the res