Form No. J.(2)

Item No.13 Court No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 26.02.2026 DELIVERED ON: 26.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN M.A.T. 2165 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 Sk. Sariful Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. Lutful Haque Mr. Gazi Farukh Hossain Mr. Rakib Hossain Khan Ms. Tahanima Khatun …..For the Appellant Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Ld. Jr. S.C.

Mr. Tirthankar Dey …..For the State Mr. Santimoy Bhattacharyya Mr. Ziaul Haque Mr. H. K. Mahata …..For the Respondent Nos.11 to 15 JUDGMENT (ORAL):

PER, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:-

1. In this appeal, the order dated 27.08.2025, as passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 19326 of 2025 is assailed.

2. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court declined to grant relief to the prayers made in the said writ petition.

3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant, at the very outset, draws our attention to the copy of the writ petition, as has been annexed with the application being, CAN 1 of 2026.

4. It is argued that after the death of the original Bargadar, Ainal Haque Shaikh in respect of the land in question, the writ petitioner/appellant being his son and the widow of the said Bargadar and his two daughters, particulars of whom has been given in page no.39 of the said application being, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026, inherited the right of Bargadarship in accordance with the provision of Section 15 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”, in short).

5. It is further submitted that there is no inter se dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased Bargadar and the present writ petitioner being the son of the original Bargadar, Late Ainal Haque Shaikh, approached the appropriate authority under Section 15A of the said Act for mutating his name in respect of the suit plot of land, which was, however, declined by the said authority.

6. It is further submitted that challenging the order of refusal to effect mutation in the name of the writ petitioner in terms of the provision of Section 15A of the said Act, the writ petitioner/appellant approached the appellate authority and the said appellate authority by its order dated 22.04.2022, while allowing the said appeal, set aside the order of the appropriate authority, as passed under Section 15A of the said Act with a further direction to hear the writ petitioner’s/appellant’s application for mutation under Section 15A of the said Act afresh.

7. It is submitted that even after remand, the said appropriate authority did not take any action in terms of Section 15A of the said Act and finding no other alternative, the present writ petitioner/appellant approached the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal for a direction upon the said authority on account of his inaction within the meaning of Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997.

8. It is submitted that the said Tribunal after considering the entire matter by its order dated 02.07.2025 directed the said authority i.e. B.L. & L.R.O., Chanditala – I, Hooghly to conclude the proceeding under Section 15A within a specified period of time.

9. It is argued that though before the learned Single Bench a case has been made out on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner/appellant, being the legal heir of the original Bargadar is prevented by the private respondents being the Raiyats of the land in cultivating such land, the learned Single Bench declined to grant relief to the writ petitioner/appellant only on the score that the time limit, as fixed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, is not over.

10. It is thus submitted that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the present appellant/writ petitioner by setting aside the impugned order.

11. Such prayer is, however, vehemently opposed by the lear