High Courts should not exercise plenary writ jurisdiction as a court of first instance when an efficacious alternative remedy is available through a specialized statutory tribunal established under constitutional provisions for resolving administrative or land tenure disputes.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Learned Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy in relation to a property being premises no. 16B, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata, 700019 and has prayed for setting aside the summons dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy in Misc. Case No. 63 of 2025.

2. Petitioner claims that their predecessor-in-interest instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 39 of 2000 before the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2^nd Court at Alipore for eviction of the 3^rd respondent on the ground of expiry of lease by efflux of time. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner purchased the said property by registered deed of conveyance and got themselves substituted in place and stead of the original plaintiff in the said suit. The said suit was decreed and the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 7 of 2025.

3. In the meantime, the decree was put into execution by the petitioner giving rise to Title Execution Case No. 20 of 2025. It is alleged that the 3^rd respondent in collusion with M/s Engineers Service Station filed an application Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 211 of 2025, wherein a plea has been taken that the 3^rd respondent is the thika tenant under The Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (for short “the 1981 Act”). In Title Appeal No. 7 of 2025, the 3rd respondent disclosed a copy of the notice to be treated as summons in Misc. Case No. 63 of 2025.

4. Challenging the authority of the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy to issue the notice to be treated as summons dated 02.01.2026, the petitioner has approached this court.

5. Mr. Thakkar, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent in its written statement filed in Title Suit No. 39 of 2000 took the plea that the property in question stood vested with the State of West Bengal under the 1981 Act as the same is the thika property. He contended that such plea was considered and rejected by the Learned Trial Judge while passing the judgment and decree dated November 20, 2024. Mr. Thakkar contended that the Civil Court was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the status of the property is a thika property as well as the issue of thika tenancy under the 1981 Act and the Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide such issues. He further contended that the 3rd respondent had never set up any claim of Thika Tenancy under the The West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition And Regulation) Act, 2001 (hereinafter, the “2001 Act”). Mr. Thakkar thus, contended that the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy could not have assumed jurisdiction and issued summons to the petitioners.

6. Mr. Roy, Learned Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent raised an objection as to the entertainability of this writ petition. He contended that the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001 (for short “the 2001 Act”) is a “specified Act” under Section 2 (r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act 1997 (for short ‘1997 Ac