The main legal point established in the judgment is that the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain disputes touching the provisions of a 'specified Act', and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Banerjee, J. - MAT 1230/2021 is an appeal from the judgment and order dated August 10, 2018, whereby W.P. No. 17722(W) of 2005 was disposed of.

M.A.T 1212 of 2021 is an appeal from the judgment and order dated September 3, 2021, whereby the application of the respondent no. 6 in the writ petition (appellant before us) for review of the judgment and order dated August 10, 2018, was dismissed. The two appeals were taken up for hearing together along with connected applications as they involve the same facts and points of law.

2. I propose to deal first with MAT 1230 of 2021.

In re: M.A.T. 1230 of 2021 3. The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of Premises No. 151, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata (in short, 'the said premises').

4. In the year 2005, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 17722(W) of 2005 before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The writ petition contained several prayers. However, before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner gave up all prayers save and except prayer (a) as was recorded by the learned Single Judge by an order dated December 20, 2005. Prayer (a) of the said writ petition reads as follows:-

'a) A declaration be issued by this Hon'ble Court that premises no. 151, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata does not come within the purview of the Act of 2001 and does not stand vested and never stood vested in the State of West Bengal either under the said Act of 1981 or under the Act of 2001'.

5. The writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge on August 10, 2018. The learned Judge rejected the point of maintainability of the writ petition raised by the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 6 in the writ petitions (appellant before us). In doing so the learned Judge relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Amit Basu v. The controller & Ors. Reported at (2014) 2 High Court Cases (Cal) 584 = 2014 (3) CHN (Cal) 89. Having rejected the point of maintainability of the writ petition on the strength of the aforesaid decision, the learned Judge passed an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition which has been extracted above, on the strength of the decision of a Special Bench of this Court in Lakshmimoni Das & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported at 1987(2) CLJ 53.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 6 in the writ petition (in short 'IOL') moved an application for review of the said judgment and order which was registered as RVW 157 of 2018. The review application was dismissed by a judgment and order dated September 3, 2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in the other appeal.

7. We have heard learned Advocates of the parties at length. The short point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (in short 'the 1997 Act'). Mr. Tilak Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant drew our attention to various provisions of the 1997 Act and in particular Sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof which read as follows:-

'6. Jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal.- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall, with effect from such date as may be appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf, exercise jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to-

(a) (Substituted by the West Bengal Act 7 of 2001 for 'an order in original' (w.r.e.f 3.8.1998).)[any order] made by an Authority under a specified Act;

(b) an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of any Authority under a specified Act;

(c) an appeal against an order of the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 36 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953;

(Substituted, ibid (w.r.e.f. 3.8.1998) for the following:)[(d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any Act under the provisions of a specified Act;]

(e) adjudica