A High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy exists before a specialized tribunal, particularly in land reform matters. The tribunal serves as the court of first instance, and bypassing this machinery violates the fundamental principle of self-imposed judicial restraint.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner, a school, has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to allot/settle one acre land out of Dag No. 134 and for a direction upon the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry/ administrative review of the entire process of sanction and execution of the long term lease granted in favour of the 12^th respondent.

2. Petitioner states that since 2016, the authorities of the School approached the competent authorities for allotment of one acre of land out of Dag No. 134, J.L. No. 31 within mouza-Garden Reach for using the same as a playground by the girl students of the petitioner school as the said land is adjacent to the school. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata submitted a comprehensive report dated 05.11.2020 confirming the petitioner’s need and recommending that the land be settled in favour of the school. The School Education Directorate, by a communication dated 14.03.2024, reiterated that a proposal for settlement of one acre of the said land in favour of the petitioner school had been transmitted to the Additional Secretary, Government of West Bengal for necessary action. Petitioner came to learn that in the meantime, the 1^st respondent has purportedly accorded a sanction in favour of the 12th respondent company for grant of lease for a period of 99 years over a large area comprising several plots including plot No. 134. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior Advocate for the 12^th respondent raised an objection against the entertainability of the writ petition. He contended that the petitioner has challenged the grant of lease in favour of the 12^th respondent in exercise of powers under Section 4B (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He further contended that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 are “Specified Acts” under Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (for short “the 1997 Act”). He submitted that the issues raised in this writ petition falls within the domain of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. Mr. Majumdar placed reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India , (1997) 3 SCC 261 and contended that the Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to act as the Court of first instance in respect of the matters falling within the domain of the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution. Mr. Majumdar placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court delivered on 20.03.2026 in WPA No. 25183 of 2025 the case of Gour Chandra Ghosh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and others in support of his contention that the Tribunal created under the 1997 Act is an effective alternative remedy which should not be allowed to be bypassed.

4. Mr. Majumdar further contended that since the petitioner has challenged the grant of lease in favour of the 12^th respondent, such a challenge has to be made before the Civil Court and not before the writ court. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of t