IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi WPLRT 89 of 2024 Arun Kumar Kundu Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Roy, Advocate Mr. Gazi F. Hossain, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. Sujata Mukherjee, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : April 24, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated April 26, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A.

No.214 of 2017 (LRTT).

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal erred in not considering the merits of the matter. He submits that, there was an application filed under Section 14(M) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which required consideration. Moreover, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority and, therefore, there was no question of a review being undertaken by the adjudicating authority.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, on merits, the Tribunal erred in not considering the size of the family of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis the land available to him. Learned Tribunal allowed the order of the adjudicating authority as affirmed by the appellate authority without considering the merits of the case of the writ petitioner.

4. State is represented.

5. Vesting proceeding case being BR Case No.243/DNK/1989 was initiated by the Revenue Officer, Dhaniakhali, Hooghly against the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner under Section 14(T) and Section 14(S) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The writ petitioner is the son of the raiyat against whom the proceedings stood initiated.

6. Such vesting proceeding was disposed of by an order dated January

11, 1990 by which, 4.01 standard hectares of land was held to be vested with the State. The Revenue Officer at that material point of time determined the family composition of the father of the writ petitioner as five in number. This order remained unchallenged till 2001 when LR Appeal No.42/01 was filed. This appeal was not proceeded with.

7. Thereafter, the father of the writ petitioner made a representation before the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer for reconsideration of the order of the Revenue Officer passed in BR Case No.243/DNK/1989. The concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer did not act thereon. For such inaction, an original application being OA No.3137/12 (LRTT) was filed before the Tribunal. Such original application was disposed of by directing the original applicant to prefer an appeal against the order of the prescribed authority.

8. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the District Land and Land Reforms Officer which was registered as LR Appeal No.114/13 in connection with BR Case No.243/DNK/1989.

9. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal by an order dated June

23, 2016 concurring with the view of the Revenue Officer.

10. The writ petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No.214 of 2017 challenging the order of the appellate authority.

11. In the interregnum, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the vesting proceedings where he did not succeed. During the pendency of the vesting proceedings, writ petitioner sold certain lands which were found to be vested. Writ petitioner did not make such purchasers as parties in the original application.

12. We also find from the records that, although, the original order of vesting was disposed of by the prescribed authority on January 11, 1990, the challenge to the same by the writ petitioner was first launched in 2001 and then in July 25, 2013.

13. Before the learned Tribunal, writ petitioner suppressed the filing of the writ petition challenging the vesting as also the appeal filed in 2001. Learned Tribunal noted both the conduct of the writ petitioner as also the suppressio