Judgment :

RaiChattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner has come before the Court with somewhat an innocuous prayer that his application dated February 18, 2022, submitted before the Revenue Officer, Falakata Block, Land & Land Reforms Officer, under Section 14E of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, be adjudicated and decided by the said authority within a stipulated period of time.

2. Mr. Saha, who has represented the petitioner would say that under Section 14E of the said Act, the Revenue Officer is empowered, upon receipt of a complaint from a Rayat belonging to Schedule Tribe, regarding contravention of provision of Section 14C thereof, in respect of transfer of a plot of land or any portion thereof, to set aside such an improper transfer.

3. Allegedly, transfer of the land of the petitioner, who is a member of the Schedule Tribe is not in compliance with the mode of transfer of land by the Schedule Tribes, as provided under Section 14C of the Act of 1955. Hence, to seek redress, the petitioner has submitted the statutory complaint vide his letter dated February 18, 2022.

4. Mr. Saha has further submitted that the petitioner and also the opposite parties have been given opportunity of hearing by the said statutory authority, in respect of petitioner’s statutory complaint, that is, dated February 18, 2022. However, allegedly the same has not yet been disposed of by dint of any order passed by the Revenue Officer. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved and seeks an order that the Revenue Officer be directed for time bound disposal of the said statutory complaint of the petitioner, dated February 18, 2022.

5. Challenge to such prayer of the petitioner has been raised on behalf of the opposite party on the basis of Section 7 and 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. Mr. Sarkar appearing for the opposite party has challenged the maintainability of this case by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the provisions under Section 7 and 8 of the Act of 1997. He would say that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is a “specified Act” in terms of Section 2 (r) of the Act of 1997. Hence, he would say that the provision under Section 6 (d) would be relevant and that provisions under Section 7 and 8 of the 1997 Act for exclusion of jurisdiction of any Court including the Single Bench of the High Court and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1997 would be evident. By referring to the provisions thereof, Mr. Sarkar would say that the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court has been saved as regards any application relating to the provisions of the said “specified Act” of 1955. He would say that the instant case may be dismissed due to want of jurisdiction by the Court. To buttress his submission as above Mr. Sarkar would refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR OnLine 2022 Cal 1687 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Anchit Agarwal) . The Court has held as follows :

“23. What indubitably follows from the above discussion is that for adjudication of any dispute which touches any provision of a ‘specified Act’, one must approach the tribunal at the first instance and all other civil Courts including the High Court excepting the Division Bench exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, have lost the power and jurisdiction to entertain such dispute.”

The Court has also held therein that, since the Act of 1955 is a “specified Act” under Section 2(r) of the 1997 Act, the writ petitioner ought to have approached the Land Tribunal, as the jurisdiction of the Learned Single Judge stood ousted thereby. The Court held that the Learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the case. Mr. Sarkar has sought for dismissal of the case.

6. In this case the Court is to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In doing so the Co