Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitution Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya &

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya WPLRT No. 214 of 2025 Rabindra Nath Bayen and another -vs-

The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Mukteswar Maity, Ms. Manika Sarkar.

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

Heard on : February 9, 2026. Judgment on : February 9, 2026.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order dated September 24, 2025, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the settlement of the remaining land of ten decimals in favour of the petitioners, in view of the fact that they are in possession of the said land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by a previous order dated May 7, 1997 passed by the writ court in WP No. 6493(W) of 1997, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners’ representation for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners.

3. Thereafter, nothing being done in that regard, a further representation was given by the petitioners on June 19, 2023, annexed at page 22 of the writ petition.

4. It is contended that when the said representation was also not being considered, an original application was moved before the learned Tribunal. In connection with the same, the learned Tribunal directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) concerned to file a report.

5. Pursuant to such direction, a comprehensive report dated March 13, 2025 was filed, which is annexed at page 27 of the writ petition.

6. In the said report, it was disclosed by the BL & LRO that apparently the concerned plot of seventy-five decimals had vested in the State Government by operation of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (in short “the 1953 Act”)

vide B.R.Case No. 79/1, 139/1.

7. It was also mentioned in the said report that the plot was distributed through joint patta in different raiyati settlement cases and recorded in the CLR ROR.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to controvert such report before the learned Tribunal, neither were any details of the names of the persons in whose favour such joint pattas were allegedly granted disclosed in the report.

9. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in law in not directing the respondents authorities to consider the settlement of the entire land of seventy-five decimals, which the petitioners are still in possession of, in favour of the petitioners within the contemplation of Section 14S(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”).

10. Learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State, contends that in view of the vesting having already occurred by virtue of the 1953 Act, the case of the petitioners is not governed by the provisions of Section 14S(3) of the Act of 1955, the said provision being attracted only in cases where the plots were vested under the Act of 1955 Act not in the

1953 Act.

11. In any event, it is argued that the writ petitioners all along sought raiyati settlement within the contemplation of Section 49 of the Act of 1955, which is subject to the discretion of the respondent authorities and other legal formalities.

12. Learned Senior Government Advocate cites a judgment reported at (1990) 2 CHN 1 (The State of West Bengal, through the Secretary, Land Reforms & Land Utilisation Department & Ors. Vs. Motilal Manna & Ors.) for the proposition that the erstwhile bargadars cannot claim any special right of settlement of the lands possessed by them as bargadars and after the vesting of the said lands they may make representation to the State Government to get settlement of the said land on compassionate grounds.

13. Thus, it is argued that no legal rights of the petitioners were infring