FALAKATA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions were heard analogously since all these three writ petitions involve certain common principles of law. Though the facts are different, though the questions that arise out of these common principles are different, yet there are certain communions of identity within the question to be answered. Therefore, though we have heard the common principles together in respect of the three writ petitions, but in effect we have heard the three writ petitions simultaneously one after the other.

(2.) Very interesting points have been raised in course of hearing of this writ petition arising out of a decision by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissing the application made before it on the ground of limitation in a judgment consisting of 56 pages. The question of limitation was not addressed by Mr. Mukherjee on the ground that on the face of the record, it appears that there was no limitation at all that the order which was challenged before the Land Tribunal was not within the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal and the application made before it was due to wrong advice and on account of a decision of this Court where initially the matter was sought to be moved through a writ petition, but the points could not be raised before the learned Single Judge to impress upon him that this case was outside the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal and could have been decided by this Court. In any event the same question which was involved in the said writ petition having been directed by an order passed in the said writ petition to be agitated before the Land Tribunal and the same having been taken to the Land Tribunal, even assuming that the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction, then also the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, since the application whereof had not been excluded in a proceeding initiated before it. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the writ petition stands on its own strength and the action under challenge pertains to an action under the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) and not under any of the provisions of the specified Acts within the meaning of section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (1997 Act).

(3.) This preliminary objection does not seem to be of any substance in view of the provisions contained in section 38 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (1887 Act). Section 38(2) of the 1887 Act prohibits the Presiding Officer of an Appellate Civil Court from dealing with an appeal against an order passed by himself in another capacity. Mr. Dasgupta confined his objection only on this point with regard to hearing of the matter by "this Bench".