Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1709
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ
Mrinal Kanti Senapati – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Constitutional Writ WPLRT 92 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Guria
For the Respondents:Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate & Ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy
A government employee cannot qualify as a bargadar under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act if unable to personally cultivate land.
Headnote:The writ petition challenges an order from the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which upheld the finding that a government employee cannot qualify as a bargadar under Section 2(8) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on the requirement for personal cultivation and government service obligations. The Court found that the writ petitioner failed to prove that he could cultivate the land while being employed.
Result: WPLRT 92 of 2014 along with all other pending applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition and obligations of bargadar under relevant law. (Para 9) |
| 2. writ petition against tribunal's finding on government employee's status. (Para 10) |
| 3. finding of the tribunal upheld by the court. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling on the writ petition. (Para 14 , 15) |
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Guria, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate & Ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Advocate Hearing & Judgment on : June 11, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The application for restoring the writ petition is allowed.
2. Writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. Writ petition is directed against an order dated February 11, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.1426/2007 (LRTT).
4. At the behest of the writ petitioner, the writ petition was kept pending since 2014.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal concurred with the finding of the appellate authority.
6. Learned Tribunal also held that, a person in Government service cannot be accepted as bargadar, if he fails to cultivate the lands personally as defined under Section 2(8) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
7. Learned Tribunal also took note of the concept of personal cultivation and the restriction imposed in Explanation appended to Section 17(6)
of the Act of 1955.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitioner superannuated as an employee of the land reforms department. Writ petitioner claims to be a bargadar during the period of his employment.
9. Conceptually, a bargadar is a person who actually physically cultivates the land. A person in full time employment with the government cannot be considered to be cultivating the land as he is required to devote his time for the employer.
10. The issue as to whether or not, Government employee can claim to be a bargadar was answered as against the writ petitioner concurrently by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority and the Tribunal.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no reason to take a view which is contrary to the finding rendered by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order.
12. Writ petitioner failed to establish that the concurrent finding of fact is perverse.
13. Writ petitioner failed to establish that despite his full time employment as a Government servant he was able to cultivate the land in question.
Writ petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof in such aspect.
14. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ petition.
15. WPLRT 92 of 2014 along with all other pending applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
