2026 Supreme(Cal) 504

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Gour Chandra Ghosh & Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 25183 of 2025 With WPA 25184 of 2025 With WPA 25185 of 2025 With WPA 25187 of 2025 
Decided On : 20-03-2026

A Single Bench of the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when a specialized statutory tribunal exists to act as the primary, efficacious court of first instance for disputes governed by land reform legislation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Availability of effective alternate remedy - Tribunal established under specialized land reform legislation acts as court of first instance for disputes - Writ petition not maintainable before Single Bench when statutory remedy is available - Division Bench alone exercises judicial review over tribunal decisions. (Paras 13, 22, 24, 40)

(B) Alternative Remedy - Exhaustion of statutory remedies - Rule of policy, convenience, and discretion - Writ petition not maintainable when statute provides mechanism for resolving grievances - Exceptions only in cases of fundamental rights violation, violation of natural justice, or where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction - High Court will not permit bypassing of statutory machinery. (Paras 17, 18, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged appellate orders issued under land reform laws. These orders were passed in proceedings regarding land mutation. The petitioners alleged that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by condoning the delay in filing appeals without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard. Respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable before the Single Bench, as an efficacious statutory forum existed for the adjudication of such disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the legislature intended for the specialized tribunal to function as the court of first instance for all disputes arising under the specific land reform legislation. Consequently, the Single Bench lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions directly, and the petitioners are required to exhaust the statutory remedy provided.

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable before a Single Bench of the High Court when a specialized tribunal serves as the designated authority for adjudicating disputes under the applicable land reform law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific and effective forum for the resolution of disputes, parties must seek redress through that established machinery. The tribunal functions as the court of first instance, and the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is constitutionally preserved for judicial review of tribunal decisions via a Division Bench, rather than acting as a court of first instance for the original dispute.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate legal forum.