Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar

W.B.L.R.T. 14 of 2025

Smt. Minati Goswamiand another

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait

Ms. Moumita Mandal

For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib

Ms. Priyamvada Singh

For the respondent nos.5 & 14 : Mr. Manoranjan Jana

Mr. Radhasyam Maiti

Heard on : 19.08.2025 Judgment on : 19.08.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. After the hearing is concluded and the court is about to pass

judgment, learned counsel for the private respondents, to whom it was made abundantly clear that the writ petition is going to be allowed, seeks to raise an objection to this court taking up the matter on the purported ground that a relative of one of us (Bhattacharyya, J.) had appeared at one stage in a different

matter between the same parties.

2. However, we strongly deprecate such unsportsmanlike and unfair attitude of the learned Advocate for the private respondents, which should be beneath the dignity of any counsel to adopt.

3. We say so because after having come to know clearly that the court was going to pass an order against his client, the learned Advocate cites the appearance of the relative of one of us (Bhattacharyya, J.), that too in a completely different matter having no connection with the present writ petition.

4. Despite such previous matter being between the same parties, there is no nexus between the said matter and the present one.

5. Moreover, it is absurd that no objection was taken at the outset but while passing the final order, seeing that his client is going to lose the matter, learned counsel takes such an objection.

6. To us, it is shameful for a member of the Bar to take such plea at such a stage, since we are a part of the same system, that is, the Bar and the Bench work in tandem and an action like this, which is beneath the dignity of an Advocate, affects the court more than the concerned counsel.

7. In any event, we choose to turn down such belated attempt to take the matter off the board during the course of passing judgment, after counsel for the parties were heard at length.

8. Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed respectively by the private respondents and the writ petitioner be kept on record.

9. The matter arises out of an order of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby the Tribunal affirmed an order of the Collector condoning the delay of about sixteen years in preferring an application under Section 9 of the West Bengal Acquisition of Home Stead for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1975 Act”).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 9 of the 1975 Act, if there is any dispute on the question as to whether a land has vested in an occupier under the provisions of Section 4 of the 1975 Act, the matter shall be referred to the Collector, whose decision thereon shall be final.

11. Section 4 of the 1975 Act provides that where an occupier has been in possession of any land on the 26^th day of June, 1975, then, if the land in his possession does not exceed .0334 hectare, such land, and if the land in his possession exceeds .0334 hectare, so much of such land as does not exceed .0334 hectare, shall stand acquired by the State Government and shall thereupon stand transferred to and vest absolutely in favour of such occupier.

12. The writ petitioner was declared to be such occupier by an order dated July 25, 2007 passed by the concerned BL & LRO (Block Land and Land Reforms Officer).

13. The private respondents, on the allegation that the dispute had not been disposed of by the BL & LRO, thereby committing contempt of a previous direction of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, had approached the Tribunal for taking action for such contempt.

14. The learned Tribunal turned down the same, taking note of the fact that the proceed