The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the exception clause allowing the Tribunal to entertain an application without exhausting the remedial measures, and the requirement for convincing materials justifying the bypassing of the forum provided in the relevant Act.

JUDGMENT

1. By jumping the statutory forum provided under the relevant Act, the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was approached for adjudication of the disputes for redressal of the grievances raised therein, which had been rejected by the Tribunal by passing the impugned order.

2. Section 10(3)(a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that the Tribunal shall not admit any application unless the applicant has availed of all the remedial measures available to him under the relevant specified Act. However, an exception is carved out in Clause (b) of Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the said Act that despite the existence of remedial measures if the Tribunal finds that it is not adequate or shall cause undue hardship to the applicant, the application can be maintained or entertained by the Tribunal.

3. Probably the writ petitioners have taken shelter under the aforesaid Clause and sought to contend that it would cause hardship to approach the forum provided in the statute and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the application is maintainable.

4. A little prelude to the dispute is required to be adumbrated.

5. The dispute owes its existence since 1979 when the judgement and decree was passed on 6th April, 1979 against the State of West Bengal declaring the title of the plaintiff therein. The decree further provides that the suit land ought to have been recorded in the Record of Rights in the name of the plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3 therein and further injunction was passed not to interfere with their peaceful possession.

6. The appeal filed against the said judgement and decree was dismissed and the judgement and decree of the Appellate Court was not assailed before this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a consequence whereof it can be reasonably inferred that the said judgement and decree attained finality and remained binding on the parties.

7. However, a Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2009 was initiated by the competent authority for correction of the Record of Rights and since the said concerned authority despite initiation of such proceeding was sitting tight over the same, the approach was made to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal thereof.

8. Subsequently the Record of Rights was corrected so far as the 32 decimal of land in the said plot was concerned leaving 32 decimal of land, which remained recorded in the name of the vendors. After becoming aware that the remaining 32 decimal of land has not been recorded in the name of the petitioners, the Title Suit No. 15 of 2018 was filed, which is still pending adjudication. However, further approach was made to the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, but the petitioners were relegated to the District Land & Land Reforms Officer, as the said officer opined that the correction can be made by the said authority. However, the District Land & Land Reforms Officer remitted the matter back to the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer to take appropriate steps.

9. Pursuant to the said order a Miscellaneous proceeding was initiated and was ultimately disposed of with categorical finding that there is no scope to correct the entries made in the finally published L.R. Record of Rights so far as it relates to 32 decimal of land comprised in the concerned plot.

10. The writ petitioners did not intend to assail the said order before the appellate forum provided under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but approached the Tribunal directly taking a plea that the remedial measures provided under the relevant specified Act if exhausted would cause undue hardship.

11. It is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners that the undue hardship would mean something which is not merited by the conduct of the applicant or is very much disproportionate having caused by the circumstance not warranted. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance has been placed upon a judgement of the Supreme Cou