D/L.13.

November 25, 2025.

.

MNS

WPLRT No. 188 of 2025

Uday Karmakar

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

Mr. Arka Maity,

Mr. Hemanta Kumar Das

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Debabrata Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Ramchandra Guchhait

…for the State.

1. The present petitioner approached the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL&LRO) with the grievance that although the subject property was all along recorded in the name of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, the same was subsequently recorded in the name of a stranger all on a sudden and seeking to know the premise

of such alteration.

2. An application was filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, upon which it was disclosed that the records of the case are not traceable. The petitioner thereafter made a representation before the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer (DL&LRO) referring to a Government Order, bearing Order No. 213- 15/10/2020 dated January 17, 2020, whereby the Principal Secretary & Land Reforms Commissioner, Land & Land Reforms and Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, State of West Bengal, had put in circulation

that there are reports of attempts to get names recorded in the Records of Rights by furnishing fake or forged deeds and these allegations should be taken seriously. The said Government Order further mentioned that immediately on receipt of such information, through written complaints or otherwise, the concerned BL & LRO shall refer the matter to the registration authority concerned. Once confirmation is received from the registration authority that the deed is fake or forged, penal action shall be initiated against the wrongdoers by lodging FIR with the local police station.

3. The Government Order further mentioned that the BL & LRO in such case shall also cancel the mutation proceedings initiated on the basis of the forged/fake document. If mutation is already done, the same shall be treated as void ab initio and the BL & LRO shall, on application or on his own motion, promptly restore the record to its original position under Section 50(1)(f) of the WBLR Act.

4. A further caveat was inserted in the said Government Order to the effect that under no circumstances the affected persons shall be advised to file appeal under Section 54 of the WBLR Act, as that would only aggravate the suffering of the actual raiyat who has already been victimized by the misdeeds of someone else. Moreover, it was mentioned in the Government Order, such rectification of records does not necessitate notification under Section

54 of the WBLR Act.

5. Thereafter, the BL & LRO took up the matter under Section 50(1)(f) of the WBLR Act, 1955 and proceeded to hold that since the petitioner has failed to establish the chain of transfer from the recorded raiyat, the petitioner’s claim was turned down.

6. The petitioner, however, instead of preferring an appeal under Section 54 of the 1955 Act against such order of the BL & LRO, directly approached the Tribunal primarily on the grievance that the reference to the Government Order regarding fake and forged documents was totally ignored by the BL & LRO and the BL & LRO, de hors the petitioner’s representation and the law, took up the matter under Section 50(1)(f) despite the bar in that regard in the Government Order dated January 17, 2020. The Tribunal, however, was of the opinion that an appeal was maintainable against the order of the BL & LRO and accordingly relegated the petitioner to such appeal.

7. Being thus aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated August 21, 2025, the present writ petition has been preferred.

8. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

9. It transpires that there are two components to the matter. First, the petitioner alleges that despite the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interests name having featured in the Records of Rights, a complete stranger’s name has been incorporated, in which regard the petitioner seeks relief by entry of the petitioner’s name in the Records of Rights.

10. The second component is whe