Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon‟ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon‟ble Justice Uday Kumar

WPLRT 151 of 2025

Sri Ram Nath Santra and others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait,

Mr. Pradip Kumar Neogi,

Mr. Anirban Saha,

Mr. Achintya Kr. Biswas

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

Mr. Ram Chandra Guchhait

Heard on : 17.09.2025 Judgment on : 17.09.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

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

2. The petitioners, under a peculiar predicament, have approached this

Court.

3. Initially, the names of the predecessors-in-interest/vendors of the

present writ petitioners were recorded in the concerned records of

rights in respect of the subject property.

4. Subsequently, however, proceedings for vesting under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1955 Act”) were taken out and a vesting order was passed, all in the name of a deceased person.

5. The said vesting was subsequently set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Leave was also granted to the said predecessors of the present writ petitioners to file appropriate applications for retention of land under Form-7AA of the Rules.

6. However, still thereafter, there was a challenge to the vires of several provisions of the 1955 Act, which culminated in an order being passed by a Division Bench. Relying on the same, a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated August 22, 1996 passed in CO 12237 (W) of 1996, observed that in view of the decision of the Division Bench passed on July 26, 1996 in Appeal from Original Order No. 400 of 1992, the petitioners therein or their vendors need not file any return in Form No. 7AA and as such the impugned notice being Annexure „B‟ to the said writ petition as well as the proceeding started under Section 14T(3) read with Section 14T(10) of the 1955 Act, as amended, which were subsequently initiated, all stand quashed. It was further observed that if any return in Form No. 7AA has already been filed, and if any order of vesting has been passed on such return, that would also not be given effect to and that too would stand quashed.

7. In view of the entire proceedings and subsequent notices being quashed, it is submitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the land was retained by the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioners. Subsequently, the writ petitioners purchased a portion of the property from their vendors.

8. Thereafter, the writ petitioners approached this Court since their representation for correction of the records of rights, by reflecting their names was not being decided, whereupon a direction was passed and necessary corrections were effected in the records of rights, thereby recording the names of the present writ petitioners in respect of the portion of the property which was sold to them to the extent of

3.28 acres.

9. However, surprisingly, the writ petitioners discovered thereafter that the names of the writ petitioners had been deleted from the records of rights in respect of the said land, despite their names having been recorded in due process of law previously by virtue of a formal order to that effect being passed by the BL & LRO, without any notice to the writ petitioners or without any proceedings for such correction being undertaken in accordance with law, to the knowledge of the petitioners. Also, the character of the land was shown to be a waterbody.

10. When the writ petitioners approached the appropriate authority, there was inaction on the part of the authority, pursuant to which the writ petitioners made a representation and thereafter, went before the Tribunal seeking a direction for correction of the records of rights as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.

8749 (W) of 1997.

11. However, the learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, mer