Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon‟be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon‟ble Justice Uday Kumar

W.P.L.R.T. 142 of 2025

Amar Nath Am and others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioner : Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait

Mrs. Moumita Mandal

For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib

Ms. Sujata Mukherjee

Heard on : 10.09.2025 Judgment on : 10.09.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order of the

Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the original

application filed by the writ petitioners.

2. The Original Application arose from the inaction on the part of

the BL&LRO to dispose of an application of the applicants, for exchange of a part of the land initially sought to be retained by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in connection a vesting under Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition

Act, 1953 (in short “1953 Act”) for other land now offered by the petitioners.

3. In brief, the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, the original intermediary, had filed a „B‟ form, thereby disclosing his option of retention of lands, to be excluded from the purview of vesting under Section 4 of the 1953 Act.

4. Thereafter, an amendment was sought to the said choice of lands sought to be retained, due to certain inadvertent omissions, which was permitted in the year 1979 by the respondent authorities.

5. Thereafter, the present writ petitioners, the successors-in-

interest of the original intermediary, again made a representation before the concerned BL&LRO stating therein that by mistake, the bastu, that is, the dwelling house of the writ petitioners, was surrendered by not including the said property within the list of lands sought to be retained in the Form „B‟. The writ petitioners now seek to retain the said bastu property and offer other land, originally retained by their predecessor, for vesting.

6. The said representation having not been disposed of by the concerned BL & LRO, the petitioners moved the Tribunal.

7. The learned Tribunal dismissed the original application, primarily on the ground that the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners had already exercised such option.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners cites West Bengal Govt. Employees (Food & Supplies Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and others Vs. Sulekha Pal (Dey) and others reported at (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 253 for the proposition that there cannot be any merit in an objection based on laches and delay in respect of retention. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the authorities of the State had not lawfully and factually dispossessed the petitioners therein, who were the heirs of the intermediary, of the khas possession of the lands in question. The right to vindicate and protect their interest in the lands-in-question in terms of the enabling provisions of the 1953 Act, it was held, would enure till they are dispossessed in the manner envisaged and by observing the formalities contemplated under the statutory provisions.

9. Learned Senior Government Advocate controverts such argument and submits that an application, practically seeking an exchange of the properties originally retained, that too by the heirs of the original intermediary, after a prolonged delay, ought not to be entertained. It is contended that since the petitioners‟

predecessor-in-interest had already given such option, the same cannot be reopened after so many years.

10. Learned Senior Government Advocate cites a judgment reported at 1984(1) CLJ 161 (Krittibas Bhattacharya and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others), a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in support of such contention.

11. Learned Senior Government Advocate next cites a judgment reported at (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 317 (State of W.B. and another Vs. Arun Kumar Basu and another) as well as (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 664 (Tandon