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.P.L.R.T. 7 of 2011

Md. Soleman, since deceased, representatives by his legal heirs

Taslema and others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty

Mr. Debajyoti Mondal

Mr. Achintya Mukherjee

Mr. Swastik Polley

For the State : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Snr. Adv.

Mr. Debashish Chakraborty

Heard on : 21.08.2025 & 26.08.2025

Judgment on : 26.08.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the petitioners’ prayer for a direction on the respondents to decide the representation of the writ petitioners on merits by holding that the same was barred by limitation due to the delay of about sixty years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites certain judgments in support of his arguments.

3. The contention raised by the writ petitioners before the respondent-authorities, as revealed from the purported application in the form of a representation before the Collector, Malda, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chanchal and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Chanchal, indicates that on the strength of an unregistered settlement by way of a written agreement dated March 10, 1951, the writ petitioners claimed that their predecessor-in-interest and they have been in actual physical possession of the property all along and that the property was vested in the State of West Bengal under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 without any prior notice to them.

4. As alleged in the representation, the writ petitioners only recently (immediately prior to the making of the application on January 18, 2010) learnt of the vesting and accordingly filed the representation seeking a rectification of the records-of-rights.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ application.

6. It is submitted that there were three instances of exercise of preparation and revision of the records-of-rights, including the CS records, the RS records and LR records.

7. Throughout this period, the writ petitioners never put up a challenge on the strength of the purported settlement/agreement in their favour.

8. Moreover, learned senior counsel relies on Section 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to argue that a transfer of a plot of land of a raiyat cannot be made except by an instrument which is registered and the Registering Officer shall not accept for registration any such instrument unless the parameters laid down in the said Section are fulfilled.

9. Learned senior counsel also argues that the judgments cited by the petitioners are not germane in the present context.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the State has a point in arguing that the judgments cited before us are not directly apt on the issue involved.

11. In Atul Chandra Mahato and others vs. State of West Bengal and others reported at 2003 (1) CHN 626, the court was considering the cancellation of an instrument within the contemplation of Section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, which stipulates certain restrictions as regards transfers.

12. The three-Judge Bench, in Atul Chandra Mahato (supra), also scrutinized the scope of Section 44(2a) of the Act in respect of who are the “persons interested” who shall be given opportunity of being heard before an entry in the finally published records-

of-rights is revised.

13. In the present case, the petitioners challenge the vesting of a particular property. There is no allegation that any cancellation of transfer under Section 5A of the 1953 Act has been effected.

14. Moreover, thi