JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

2. The present challenge has been preferred against an orderdated November 14, 2025, whereby the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissed MA 1066 of 2025, which was an application made by the writ petitioners for review of the earlier order dated July 11, 2025 passed by the Tribunal.

3. The brief background of the case is that the vendor of thepresent petitioners had taken out an application, upon acquiring the subject property in the year 2008, for mutation in the name of the said vendor. Such mutation was granted. Subsequently, a sanction plan was also obtained by the said vendor from the appropriate authority for raising a construction on the subject plots.

4. Thereafter, when an application for rectification of therecording of the subject plot as “doba” was made by the said vendor of the present writ petitioners, the D.L. & L.R.O. concerned permitted the vendor to apply for conversion, upon which a conversion application was made before the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., giving rise to Conversion Cases No.1040 and 1041 of 2021.

5. However, the matter went up to the Tribunal and by ajudgment dated September 9, 2024 passed in OA 1637 of 2023 (LRTT), the Tribunal, while observing that Rule 166 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 was not applicable, gave liberty to the vendor of the writ petitioners, nonetheless, to file “appropriate applications before Competent Authority in accordance with law.”

6. In the meantime, the present writ petitioners had purchasedthe property and applied before the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer for regularization of change of character and/or conversion or alteration in the mode of use of the plot of land for the purpose of the residential house erected thereon. The said application was forwarded by the D.L.& L.R.O. to the concerned B.L.& L.R.O. vide memo no. 9297 dated December 18, 2024.

7. Subsequently, the B.L. & L.R.O. having sat tight over thematter, the present writ petitioners took out OA No. 1278 of 2025 before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which was dismissed by an order dated July 11, 2025 on the ground that post-facto regularization of conversion of a waterbody is not permissible under Section 4C (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. However, the Tribunal also gave the writ petitioners liberty to file an “appropriate application before the appropriate authority”.

8. The writ petitioners took out a review application of the saidorder before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated November 14, 2025.

9. Being thus aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred thepresent challenge.

10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that the landwas all along recorded as a “doba” which, according to the writ petitioners, is not a water body. Subsequently, without any rhyme or reason, in the LR Records of Rights, the said subject plot was referred to as a “pukur” which is a water body. It is argued that such amendment in the Records of Rights regarding the nature of the subject plot was unlawful.

11. Secondly, it is argued that while granting mutation andsanction plan, the appropriate authority clearly proceeded on the premise that the land was not a water body. Hence, it is argued that the Tribunal proceeded on a patently erroneous premise in observing that there could not be any post-facto conversion of a water body.

12. Thirdly, it is contended that the Tribunal itself, on severaloccasions, gave liberty to the writ petitioners, and before that to the writ petitioners’ vendor, to approach the appropriate authority with a proper application. Thus, it was recognized by the Tribunal itself that there is an appropriate forum where the application for post-facto regularization and/or original conversion application could be filed.

13. This facet of the matter was overlooked by the learnedTribunal while passing the i