IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi WPLRT 7 6 o f 2 025 Sri Shyamapada Roy Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Supratik Shyamal, Advocate Ms. Sonali Ghosh Basu, Advocate For the State respondents : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Advocate Hearing & Judgment on : June 11, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Writ petition is directed against an order dated March 6, 2025 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A.

No.3525 of 2013 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal upheld the order dated June

20, 2013 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No.56 of 2008 affirming the order of the prescribed authority dated September 29, 1997 passed in a proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, in a writ petition relating to an acquisition proceeding, the High Court passed an order dated August 13, 2001 directing compensation to be paid. He submits that, a contempt proceedings was also initiated. He submits that, since the order passed by the Writ Court is binding upon the State and since the Writ Court directed payment of compensation, the State must pay the same.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner relies upon (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573 (RBF RIG Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai), (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others), (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 190 (Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Another) and (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 689 (Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah) in support of his contention that orders passed by a Court are binding on the parties.

5. Without prejudice to the first limb of contention and in the alternative, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the father of the writ petitioner was a bargadar in respect of Plot No.668. On the demise of the father of the writ petitioner, the right of bargadar stood vested in the writ petitioner. He submits that, the writ petitioner purchased Plot No.668 by a registered deed of conveyance dated August 29, 1995.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, a proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the Act of 1955 were purported to be initiated in respect of the plot concerned. He submits that, no notice of such proceeding was served upon the writ petitioner. As the owner the writ petitioner was entitled to notice of the proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the Act of 1955. He refers to the orders passed by the prescribed authority and submits that attempt to serve the raiyat was made under Certificate of Posting. He submits that, service under Certificate of Posting should not be accepted. In support of such contention, he relies upon (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 407 (State of Maharashtra vs. Rashid B. Mulani), unreported decision of the Coordinate Bench dated February 21, 2024 passed in FMA 657 of 2022 (Swapan Kumar Ghosh vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 472 (Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. vs. Collector and Others) and (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others).

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the vires of Section 14T(3) of the Act of 1955 was challenged before the High Court and that the same was struck down. An appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, he submits that, proceedings under Section 14T(3) of the Act of 1955 as against the writ petitioner is not maintainable.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarif