Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar

W.P.L.R.T. No. 123 of 2025

Sri Pradip Kumar Khatua and Ors.

-vs-

State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the petitioners. : Mrs. Usha Maiti,

Mr. Sukanta Das,

Mr. Sakya Maity, Advs.

For the respondents : Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv.,

Ms. Munmun Ganguly,

Mr. Bishnupada Jana, Advs.

Heard on : August 18, 2025. Judgment on : August 18, 2025.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J .:

1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

2. The matter has a chequered history, relating back to the year

1954. On May 28, 1954, the father/predecessor-in-interest of the original applicants, namely Gour, Nityananda, Bankim and

Kanailal and the wife of the settlor, Kshetra Mohan, namely Kaushallya, transferred the disputed property in the said applicants’ favour by way of a registered deed of settlement. The present writ petitioners are the said transferees and/or their legal heirs.

3. The said transfers were sought to be challenged in a proceeding under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and the deeds were cancelled in such proceeding. A challenge was preferred against such cancellation, which succeeded.

4. The appeal preferred by the transferees was allowed, thereby holding that the transferees were, in any event, in possession of the lands even before their names were recorded in the deed of settlement as being in possession and so the transfer was bona fide.

5. That apart, it was also observed by the appellate authority that a notification dated April 10, 1956, which was relied on by the State, came into force subsequent to the execution of the deed of settlement. Previously, the rigours of Section 5A were not applicable to raiyats but only by virtue of the said notification was the notion of Section 5A extended to raiyats. As such, the appellate authority held that the notification (and consequentially Section 5A) was not applicable to the transferees, who were raiyats.

6. The matter came up in a challenge preferred by the State before this court in a civil revisional application. The civil revisional application, however, abated in view of no steps for substitution having been taken on the demise of the opposite party no. 2 therein.

7. Thus, the order of the appellate authority, setting aside the cancellation of the said registered deed of settlement under Section 5A, attained finality.

8. Subsequently, a writ petition was moved by the transferees, giving rise to Civil Order no. 9495(W) of 1982, which was disposed of by an order dated October 11, 1982, directing the settlement officers concerned to correct the Records of Rights in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in the proceeding under Section 5A as early as possible, preferably within two months from that date.

9. Such order not being complied with, another writ petition had to be preferred by the transferees, giving rise to Civil Order no. 3413(W) of 1992, which was disposed of by an order dated April 21, 1992 where the learned Single Judge observed that the representation of the writ petitioners in that regard should be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order “after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and placing relevant documents, by passing a reasoned order”.

10. In similar tune, another learned Single Judge, by an order dated June 7, 1996 passed in CO 4597(W) of 1996, reiterated such direction by directing the B.L. & L.R.O. to dispose of the representation of the transferees by a reasoned order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within seven weeks from the date of communication.

11. The saga of the transferees’ travails did not end there. A miscellaneous case, bearing Miscellaneous Case no. 22 of 2003, was initiated as per the directions of the different Benches of this court for correction of the Records of R