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 146 of 2025

Md. Muzibar Rahaman Laskar and others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait,

Ms. Moumita Mondal

For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv.,

Mr. Tamal Taru Panda

Heard on : 22.09.2025 Judgment on : 22.09.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

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

2. At the outset, we must appreciate the able assistance rendered and

the fair approach taken by the learned Senior Government Advocate.

3. The conspectus of the writ petition is limited. Learned counsel for the

petitioners argues that initially a challenge was preferred by the original intermediary against the vesting of certain lands of the said intermediary on the ground that among such lands, purportedly

belonging to the said intermediary, lands of other relatives of the said intermediary were also included erroneously.

4. The matter came up to this Court, when a writ court had directed the Revenue Officer to consider afresh the matter in the light of the representation given by the present writ petitioners with regard to the lands which have been allowed to be retained by the petitioners, particularly on the issue as to whether those lands include lands belonging to other persons, being respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as mentioned therein, in which case the Revenue Officer was to consider the same after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, it was held, if it was found that no such land had been included within the lands allowed to be retained by the petitioner, the impugned order of the Revenue Officer would stand.

5. With a limited grievance against the said order of the writ court, the writ petitioners preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated May 21, 2002, whereby it was clarified that the writ petitioners shall be permitted to file a supplementary return in B form, which would then be considered by the Revenue Officer. Such return was filed by the writ petitioners. Thereafter, several dates of hearing were given and the matter was heard at length. However, subsequently the matter being not concluded over a prolonged period, a challenge was preferred before the learned Tribunal by the writ petitioners.

6. In a status report authored by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Magrahat-I, South 24 Parganas, it was indicated that third party interest had been created in the land and that the records of the case were not traceable. Thereafter, there were repeated directions by the Tribunal, as evident from the annexures to the present writ petition, for reconstruction of the records. The writ petitioners were directed to co-operate with the authorities in that regard. It is submitted that the writ petitioners furnished all documents available with the writ petitioners, sufficient to reconstruct the records. However, ultimately the learned Tribunal, by the order impugned dated February 25, 2025, came to the conclusion that since a proceeding has been initiated in the meantime under Section 14T (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short “the 1955 Act”), the conclusion of the said proceeding would provide the “only panacea” for giving relief to the applicants and directed the said proceeding to be disposed of.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the proceeding under Section 14T (3) of the 1955 Act is on an entirely different footing than the original vesting order, which was directed to be reconsidered upon furnishing of a supplementary B form by the petitioners.

8. Learned Senior Government Advocate concedes to the extent that the proceeding under Section 14T (3) is a different proceeding.

9. However, on merits, the learned Senior Government Advocate controverts the submissions of the writ petition