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 Supratim Bhattacharya

WPLRT 171 of 2025

The State of West Bengal and others

Vs.

Sri Prabir Kumar Sarkar and others

With

WPLRT 172 of 2025

The State of West Bengal and others

Vs.

M/s. Eastern Switchgear & Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd.

and others

For the petitioners : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, AAG,

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Govt. Adv.,

Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal

For the respondents : Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Gourav Purakayasta,

Ms. Atasi Sarkar,

Ms. Samarpita Mukherjee

For the KMC : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee,

Mr. Gopal Chandra Das,

Ms. Ananya Das

Heard on : 03.12.2025 Judgment on : 03.12.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. Both the matters are taken up together for hearing, having arisen from the same order.

2. The present challenge arises out of an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal reversed a decision of the concerned Thika Controller to the effect that the disputed property is a thika property.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), appearing for the State/writ petitioners, contends that the impugned judgment is erroneous in law and on facts on several counts.

4. First, in the facts of the case, the respondent no.1/applicant had taken out an application for being declared a thika tenant before the Thika Controller on September 04, 1982 by filing „A‟ form.

5. However, subsequently, the respondent no.1 sought to withdraw the same, upon which the Thika Controller, by exercise of the powers vested in the Controller under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (for short “the 2001 Act”), suo motu took up the matter on the basis of information received by him and that the property is a thika tenancy.

6. However, the Tribunal proceeded on the mistaken notion that since the application was sought to be withdrawn by the applicant/present respondent no.1, the Thika Controller acted without jurisdiction in proceeding suo motu in the matters, which was an error apparent on the face of the order of the Tribunal.

7. Secondly, it is contended that as on the date of expiry of the lease, that is, on May 08, 1982, the 1981 Act, that is, the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancy and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 had already come into force. Thus, the previous bar under the 1949 Act, that is, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, to applicability of the definition of thika tenancy to leases of more than 12 years, had been removed.

8. Hence, although the present lease was of more than 21 years, as on the date of expiry of the lease, by operation of the 1981 Act, since the bar had been removed, the land became a thika property.

9. It is next contended by the learned AAG that although in the lease deed produced before the Thika Controller by the respondent, the property was described as a vacant land with permission to the respondent/lessee to erect a construction thereon, from a subsequent copy of the deed filed before the Tribunal, it is seen that a handwritten interpolation “with structure” has been incorporated in the deed. It is submitted that the same did not find place in the original deed which was produced before the Controller.

10. Thus, since a vacant land had been handed over to the respondent at the time of grant of the lease, it is argued that the property is a thika property under the 1981 Act.

11. The learned AAG also cites The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat vs. M/s. A. Raman and Co., reported at AIR 1968 SC 49, for the proposition that the expression “information” in the context in which it occurs must mean instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars, or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment. It is relevant to note that the said judgment was delivered in the context of the Income Tax Act.

12. Learned senior co