SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2608

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Partha Sarathi Sen, J
Smt. Paramita Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA 8915 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anirban Majumder
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP, Mr. Anirban Sarkar

Writ petitions for land mutation issues are not under the jurisdiction of the High Court but must be addressed by the designated tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to the writ petition under WPA 8915 of 2024 concerning the grievance of land mutation by the writ petitioner under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. The court found that the issue of mutation is under the jurisdiction of the tribunal as established by the said Act, citing Sections 2(r) and 6(b). The court dismissed the petition, affirming the lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought while not addressing the merits of the mutation application.

Table of Content
1. grievance regarding land mutation (Para 3 , 4)
2. jurisdictional issues under specified act (Para 5)
3. court's observation on authority's inaction (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. final decision and costs noted (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

1. The affidavit-of-service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. The writ petitioner and the respondents/State are represented by their respective learned advocates.

3. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that though the writ petitioner became the owner of the land particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the instant writ petition by virtue of a registered deed of purchase dated 21.05.2014, however, despite submission of application for mutation with the jurisdictional BL&LRO who is the respondent no. 5 herein mutation has not yet been effected.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that an appropriate writ/writs may be issued against the respondent no. 5/authority to consider the mutation application as filed by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

5. Mr. De, learned AGP appearing for the respondents/State submits before this Court that in view of the provision of Section 2 (r) read with Section

6 (b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act , 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1997’) such relief cannot be granted by this Court since the same is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal as constituted under Section 4 of the said Act of 1997.

6. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned Advocates for the contending parties it appears to this Court that the writ petitioner approached before this Court complaining inaction and/or culpable negligence on the part of the respondent no. 5/authority for not effecting mutation as per the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which is admittedly as specified Act under Section 2 (r) of the said Act of 1997.

7. As rightly pointed out by Mr. De that Section 6 of the said Act of 1997 clearly mandates that an application complaining inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified Act comes under the jurisdiction of the tribunal as constituted under Section

4 of the said Act of 1997.

8. This Court thus finds sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. De.

9. This Court is thus of considered view that the relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in view of lack of jurisdiction in view of the settled position of law as discussed supra.

10. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition being WPA 8915 of 2024 is dismissed.

11. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that this Court while disposing the instant writ petition has not gone into the merit of the application for mutation as has been submitted by the writ petitioner with the respondent no. 5/authority.

12. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top