IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar

WPLRT No. 146 of 2015

Sm. Aroti Paul and Another

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Ld. Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Jagabandhu Roy,

Mr. Balailal Sahoo ... Advocates

For the State : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP,

Mr. Rudranil De ... Advocates

Heard on : 12.08.2025 & 20.08.2025

Reserved on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 27.08.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The writ petitioners had challenged an order dated July 13, 2015 passed

by the First Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 306 of 2015 (LRTT), whereby the petitioners’ application

for a direction on the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Goghat – II at Kamarpukur, District – Hooghly, regarding permission to give a fresh option to surrender 84 decimals of land in Mouza - Idalbati in plot no. 1704 in exchange of vested lands being 56 decimals in plot no. 6843 and 28 decimals in plot no. 6932, has been turned down.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners argues that initially a determination was made by the concerned BL & LRO on September 3, 1985 in respect of the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner to be vested with the State under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1955 Act”). However, one of the married daughters of the original raiyat was excluded from the family of the raiyat for the purpose of calculation of the ceiling limit, in derogation of Section 14K(c) of the 1955 Act. Whereas the date of vesting was February 15, 1971, which was to be taken as the cut-off date under Chapter – II B of the 1955 Act for the purpose of calculation of the ceiling limit, the said daughter was married in the year 1977 and, as such, was erroneously excluded from the calculation.

3. Learned senior counsel next argues that there was no independent enquiry under Section 14N of the 1955 Act, read with Rule 14B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 (for short, “the 1965 Rules”), for the purpose of calculating as to what portion of the vested land was irrigable and what was not. The composite adjudication under Section 14T(3) of the 1955 Act, without a prior independent adjudication under Section 14N, it is argued, deprived the petitioners’ predecessor from preferring a challenge under Section 14-O against such adjudication. Since separate appeals are provided for in the statute, under Section 54 against an order under Section 14T (3) and under Section 14-O against orders under Section 14N of the 1955 Act, it is argued that non-

adjudication under Section 14N vitiated the determination.

4. Thus, the said adjudication ought to have been reopened and a fresh option of retention permitted to be given by the petitioners.

5. It is further argued that the original raiyat died on June 17, 1990, whereas the vesting proceeding was pending even thereafter. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contends that the original order of vesting was challenged by way of a writ petition, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal but was later on dismissed for default. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was a stay order operating, due to which the vesting proceeding was stalled. It is submitted that upon transfer to the Tribunal, by operation of law, the stay order expired after the period stipulated under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunals Act, 1997 (in brief, “the 1997 Act”). It is argued that a vesting proceeding is not concluded till possession is taken under Section 14SS of the 1955 Act. The continuance of the vesting proceeding after the demise of the raiyat was vitiated in law and a nullity, being in the name of a dead person.

6. It is next contended by the petitioners that the dismissal for default of the writ petition challenging the vesting, subsequently transfe