Back
2026 Supreme(Cal) 559
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Gour Chandra Ghosh and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA Nos. 25183, 25184, 25185, 25187 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Land Laws - Writ Jurisdiction and Maintainability
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of - Specialized tribunals created under constitutional provisions act as courts of first instance, ensuring that legal disputes are resolved via specific statutory machinery, while maintaining the High Court’s power of judicial review which remains accessible to aggrieved parties via the Division Bench for subsequent scrutiny, thus preserving the constitutional basic structure. (Paras 13, 14, and 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the orders of an appellate authority that had allowed the condonation of delay in mutation appeals and directed the rehearing of such cases without providing notice or hearing to the petitioners. The state and private respondents contested the maintainability of the writ petitions, asserting that the relevant statutory framework requires that such grievances be first addressed by the specialized tribunal established for land reforms disputes.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the governing legislation explicitly mandates the tribunal as the court of first instance for any order passed by an authority under the specified land reforms act. Given that the statute provides a comprehensive and effective mechanism for appeal, interim relief, and execution, the High Court as a single bench is barred by the statutory exclusion from entertaining the petitions directly.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable before a Single Bench of the High Court when an efficacious statutory remedy is available before a specialized tribunal. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is excluded by the establishment of a tribunal for land reform matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where a statute creates a mandatory and effective machinery for grievance redressal, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass the established tribunal. The tribunal functions as the court of first instance, and the hierarchical structure of judicial review ensures that High Court intervention is reserved for challenges to tribunal decisions via the Division Bench.
Result: Petitions dismissed as not entertained, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
For the Appellants : Partha Pratim Roy, Samrat Chakraborty, Saikat Gayen
In the Respondents: Jaharlal Dey, Sukla Das Chandra, Suman Ghosh, Arka Mondal, Chandi Charan De, Saswati Chatterjee, Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Suman Dey, Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Sanjib Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Md. Nasim Ali, Nargish Parveen
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to set aside appellate orders regarding land mutation and limitation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties contest the maintainability of writ petitions under article 226 versus statutory tribunal remedy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. l. chandra kumar establishes tribunals as courts of first instance for specified acts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. high court discretion to entertain writ petitions despite alternative statutory remedies is restricted. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. division bench review is required post-tribunal; single bench writ jurisdiction is excluded. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. wblrtt possesses effective powers, excluding single bench jurisdiction for specified act matters. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. prior precedents regarding non-functional tribunals are distinguishable; petitions stand dismissed. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the orders of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad dated 02.05.2024 and 28.02.2025. By the order dated 02.05.2024 the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 (for short “the 1955 Act”) challenging an order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 50 of the 1955 Act was allowed thereby condoning the delay in preferring the said appeal. By the order dated 28.02.2025, the appeal under Section 54 of the 1955 Act was allowed thereby setting aside the orders of the Prescribed Authority in the mutation cases under Section 50 of the 1955 Act with a direction upon the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad-Jiyaganj to rehear the mutation cases afresh.
2. Petitioners claim to have acquired title in respect of the plots in question by dint of purchase from the erstwhile recorded owners. Petitioners claim to have mutated their names in respect of the said plots. Petitioners also claim to be in possession of the said plots. Upon enquiry from the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, petitioners came to know that the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer was taking steps for inclusion of the names of the private respondents in terms of the order passed by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer. After obtaining the certified copies of the proceedings started at the instance of the private respondents for recording their name in the Record of Rights, the petitioners came to know that the private respondents filed four appeals against the vendors of the petitioners challenging the orders passed in the Mutation cases by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners state that from the certified copies of the proceedings initiated for recording the names of the private respondents in the Record of Rights, the petitioners came to know that the appeals were filed accompanied by applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and such applications were allowed without serving any notice upon the petitioners or their vendors. The petitioners further state that the appellate authority passed the order dated 28.02.2025 without issuing any notice either upon the petitioners or their vendors.
3. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appellate authority ought not to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 54 of the 1955 Act without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He submitted that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction in condoning the delay ex parte thereby taking away the valuable right of the petitioners without giving them any opportunity to contest the application for condonation of delay. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Samir Kumar Sarkar
