BISWA SEKHAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against an order dated March 17, 2021, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A.977 of 2020.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, a suit for partition was initially filed. Thereafter, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed in which, State was a party-defendant. The suit was initially partly decreed. First Appeal was carried. In the First Appeal, again the suit was partly decreed. A Second Appeal was carried. The Second Appeal was disposed of by a judgment and decree dated August 24, 2001 where, the High Court, decreed the entirety of the suit in favour of the plaintiff as against the State- defendant. He submits that by virtue of such decree passed on Second Appeal, the writ petitioners are entitled to the entirety of the plots of land concerned. Petitioner applied before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer in terms of the decree passed on Second Appeal. Such application was disposed of by an order dated November 5, 2019 passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer negating the claim. He submits that, the writ petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A.977 of 2020, which was dismissed by the order dated March 17, 2021. He submits that, the learned Tribunal misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of Sec. 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. In support of his contention he relies upon 2016 (3) CLJ (Cal) page 10 (Sri Bidyapati Pal and ors. vs. State of West Bengal & ors.) and an unreported decision of a coordinate Bench passed on November 16, 2021 in W.P.L.R.T.49 of 2021 (Sri Jiban Krishna Roy vs. State of West Bengal & ors.). He contends that, Sec. 10 of the Act of 1997 does not create any embargo on the Tribunal in hearing and deciding an Original Application directed against the order of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer without a statutory appeal being preferred therefrom.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the State contends that the claim of the writ petitioner is barred in view of 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.