IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a petitioner to have a legal right or interest in the subject matter to challenge a decision, as determined by the court's interpretation of the locus standi principle.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

Introduction

1. The writ petitioner has assailed the order dated July 24, 2023 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA 2011 of 2021 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the writ petitioner was not an interested person in connection with the application for conversion submitted by the private respondent. The Tribunal has also held that there is no irregularity or inconsistency in the order dated July 28, 2021 passed by the Commissioner, Presidency Division as well as the order dated August 28, 2019 passed by the authority under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application.

Contentions of the Writ Petitioner

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that, the writ petitioner is an adjacent land owner of the private respondent. The private respondent had applied for conversion under Section 4C of the Act of 1955 read with Rule 5 A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The private respondent had sought for conversion of land comprised of 7.45 acres in different plots. Initially, the private respondent had applied for conversion of land from Shali to Commercial/Bastu on May 16, 2018. Subsequently, the private respondent had applied on July 11, 2019 for conversion of such land to Industrial Park. Such applications for conversions had been filed under Form 1A accompanied by such declaration.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that the declaration given by the private respondent along with Form 1A was false. Consequently, report under Rule 5A (8) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules 1965, has also stood vitiated. He has referred to the report and contended that, although the writ petitioner was recorded at Serial No. 15 at page 250 of the report however, the writ petitioner was never approached for a no-objection certificate. Therefore, according to him, the authorities had acted in violation of the prescribed procedure. The private respondent had perpetuated fraud upon the writ petitioner.

5. Referring to the objections raised by the writ petitioner by the letter dated September 14, 2018 and December 10, 2018, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the authority under Section 4C of the Act of 1955 permitted the application of the private respondent dated July 11, 2019 for conversion without considering the objections.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that, the writ petitioner filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1955 in which an Interim Order dated February 19, 2020 was passed. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by the order dated July 28, 2021 which was challenged before the Tribunal resulting in the impugned order.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the writ petitioner possesses requisite locus standi to question the conversion proceedings. In support of such contention, he has relied upon Section 4C (2) of the Act of 1955, the frequently answered questions in relation to conversion of land as available in the website, Rules 5A (6) and 5A (8) of the Rules of 1965, Rule 164 of the Manual of 1991 and the prescribed format of the report under Rules 5 (8), 5 A (10) and 5A (11) of the Rules of 1965.

8. In respect of his contention with regard to locus standi of the writ petitioner, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon 2000 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 552 (M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others), 2005 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 683 (Sai Chalchitra vs. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal and Others), 1979 Volume 1 Calcutta Law Journal 489 (Sanatan Roy vs. The Municipal commissioners of Dum Dum Municipality & Ors.), All India Reporter 2015 Calcutta 112 (Prabhat Pan and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others) and 1984 Volume 1 Calcutta High Cou