Point of Law: Exchange of the land transferred to a post vesting transferee - EA Act does not provide for any exchange mechanism.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This writ petition arises out of a judgment and order dated January 28, 2020 passed by the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (for short “the said Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 2624 of 2020 (LRTT).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the undisputed facts giving rise to the instant writ petition may be summed up as follows:

The petitioners herein are the successors-in-interest of the erstwhile Big Raiyat Indra Narayan Jana. The said Indra Narayan Jana held several plots of land including the plot nos. 17 and 22 of Mouja Kalyanpur and plot no. 1817 of Mouja Keshrambha. The aforesaid plots stood vested to the State in connection with BR Case No. 42/1 under Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short “the E.A. Act”). The said plots were transferred by Indra Narayan Jana in favour of Surendra Nath Roy vide deed no. 8819 of 1966. Subsequently, Surendra Nath Roy transferred the said plots in favour of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 vide registered deed being no. 6989 of 1970.

3. The private respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a Title Suit no. 186 of 1979 before the Court of Munsiff (now designated as Civil Judge, Junior Division), Dantan for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The Learned Trial Judge by a judgment and decree dated June 27, 1981 decreed the said suit thereby declaring the right, title, interest and possession of the private respondents herein over the said plots and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the private respondents herein. The State of West Bengal who was the defendant no. 1 in the said suit preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 327 of 1991.The learned First Appellate Court by a judgment and decree dated May 27, 1982 dismissed the said appeal thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.

4. The concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer passed an order on 03.06.1999 to divest the said lands. Subsequently, a notice dated November 4, 2003 was issued under Section 57 of the EA Act directing the petitioners and the private respondents herein to attend the hearing along with all necessary documents in connection with the plots in question. The parties duly attended the said hearing. The respondent no. 4 herein passed an order dated November 14, 2003 directing the petitioners herein to exercise option as to what land would be vested in exchange of the land to be divested as per the order of the Hon’ble Court. Since the petitioners refused to comply with such direction, the concerned authority directed the lands mentioned in Schedule A to the said order to vest in the State. A further direction was passed to take over possession of the plots mentioned in Schedule A and to make over possession of lands involved in the Title Suit in favour of the private respondents herein.

5. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated November 14, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 4 herein by filing an application under Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act 1997 which was registered as O.A. No. 2624 of 2010 (LRTT). The learned Tribunal by a judgment and order dated January 28, 2020 dismissed the original application. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the said judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the concerned authority exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the petitioners to exercise option as to what land would be vested in exchange of the land which had to be divested as the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Rajbala Barik vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2017) 4 CHN (Cal) 190. He further urged that the said authority acted without jurisdiction by directing some of the plots which were retained by the said Indra Narayan Jana to vest in the