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) 3061

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debangsu Basak, Prasenjit Biswas, JJ
Ranjit Hazra & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.L.R.T. 105 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sujit Kumar Rath, Mrs. Joyee Maity
For the Respondents:

Parties must exhaust all statutory remedies before approaching the Tribunal, as per law.

Headnote:The writ petition is directed against an order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal which found the original application unadmittable due to lack of jurisdiction regarding exceptions to statutory remedies (paragraph 2). The court emphasizes the necessity for the petitioners to exhaust available statutory remedies as prescribed under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, before approaching the Tribunal (paragraph 4). Consequently, the petitioners are permitted to appeal under the relevant section, which will be treated as timely if filed within four weeks from the order (paragraph 6).

Table of Content
1. writ petition against the tribunal's order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. discussion on statutory remedy exhaustion. (Para 4 , 5)
3. final order allowing appeal under section 54. (Para 6)

1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated April

24, 2025 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 1785 of 2020 (LRTT).

2. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal found that, the order assailed before the Tribunal was appealable under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act , 1955. Learned Tribunal found that, the Original Application did not contain any averment to the effect that, the original applicant was within the exemptions provided under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act , 1997 for waiver of the exhaustion of the other remedies available by statute. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal was pleased not to admit the Original Application.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, order of vesting was assailed in a writ petition before the High Court and the same was set aside. He submits that, on the strength of such order of the High Court his clients applied before concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer who declined to act in terms of the order of the High Court. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached the Tribunal.

4. The writ petitioners did not exhaust their statutory remedies as available to them under the Act of 1955. The order of the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer is appealable under Section 54 of the Act of 1955. We do not find from the facts and circumstances of the present case that, there exist any special circumstance for the writ petitioners to approach the Tribunal directly without exhausting statutory alternative remedy available to them.

5. In such circumstances, we are not minded to interfere with the impugned order of learned Tribunal.

6. We, however, allow the writ petitioners before us to apply under Section 54 of the Act of 1955 assailing the order of the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. In the event, such appeal is filed within four weeks from date, the concerned appellate authority will treat the appeal to be within time for preferring the appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

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