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

Where a statute establishes a specialized tribunal as the court of first instance for specific land-related disputes and provides an efficacious alternative remedy, the High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 as a court of first instance, compelling parties to exhaust statutory procedural machinery.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 - Sections 6, 7, 8, and 10 - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Section 54 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Writ Jurisdiction - Exhaustion of statutory remedies - The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy provided by a statute, where a specialized tribunal is constituted to function as the court of first instance for specified acts, precludes the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction as a court of first instance, especially where the statute expressly excludes the jurisdiction of courts in favor of the tribunal. (Paras 24, 38, and 40)

(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.