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 Supratim Bhattacharya

W.P.L.R.T. 183 of 2025 Immam Sk. and others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty

Ms. Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury

For the State : Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata

Mr. Rudranil De

For the Private respondent

nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Agniswar Chowdhury

Mr. P. Hazra

Heard on : 17.11.2025 Judgment on : 17.11.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned

Tribunal committed a patent perversity in proceeding on the

premise that a suit filed by the present petitioners seeking declaration of title and injunction over the self-same land which is the subject-matter before the Tribunal had been dismissed after full trial and the prayer for injunction made therein was rejected.

2. On such premise, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioners, having failed before the Civil Court, cannot re-litigate on the same issue before the Tribunal under the guise of a mutation dispute and the doctrine of finality of litigation squarely applies.

3. From the records, learned counsel seeks to impress upon us that it is actually the private respondents herein and before the Tribunal who have filed a title suit bearing O.C. Suit No.40 of

2021 which is still pending.

4. However, an application for temporary injunction made by the private respondents in the civil suit was turned down.

5. As such, it is argued that the learned Tribunal proceeded on a palpably erroneous premise.

6. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it will be evident from the order sheet before the Tribunal that the matter was fixed for maintainability hearing on the ground that by the self-same original application, several appellate orders were challenged by the petitioners.

7. Hence, arguments were advanced by all parties on the issue of maintainability and not on the merits and, as such, the learned Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in deciding the main original application itself on merits.

8. Learned Additional Government Pleader and as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in observing that the Appellate Authority had entered into the merits of the case and considered title deeds, R.S. Records of Rights and mutation case sheets and had come to a conclusive finding.

9. Moreover, learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the order passed in a previous application filed by the present writ petitioners under Section 44(2)(a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisitions Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1953 Act‟) was challenged before the concerned Tribunal but withdrawn.

10. Hence, the issue has already attained finality.

11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we cannot arrive at any conclusive finding ex facie as to whether the Tribunal heard the matter on merits or on maintainability.

12. No conclusive finding either way can be arrived at from the cryptic order of the Tribunal dated September 10, 2025, which merely records that counsel for the parties were heard and hearing was concluded and the matter was made C.A.V.

13. However, from the previous orders, it transpires that although the original application was not specifically fixed for hearing only on the point of maintainability, fact remains that the issue of maintainability was raised by the private respondents who were directed to file their written affidavit-in-opposition.

14. In such opposition also, the maintainability as well as merits were challenged by the private respondents.

15. Thus, some doubt remains as to whether the parties had addressed the issue of maintainability only in their arguments, and not the main original application on merits.

16. Even otherwise, the Tribunal ought not to have decided on merits the application without deciding the point of maintain