Ct. No. 19 v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

petition to the writ petitioners.

4. At the time of hearing the learned advocate appearing n behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the page nos.126-130 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the order dated

23.06.2004 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WPLRT No.1252 of 2001 wherein the following order has been passed. “After considering submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the writ application must succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. Both the orders passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal 20th September, 2001 in OA No.1839 of 2001 (LRTT) as also that of the Revenue Officer dated 17th April, 1978 proceeding no.12/78, are quashed. Let a fresh determination of ceiling be 3 made in respect of the lands of the Big Raiyat Gajendra Narh Pradhan without taking account the 10.58 acres of land, which had been transferred by him to his daughter Sabitribala Maity. We are informed during this period, in view of the vesting certain settlements have been made touching some of the lands forming part of the 10.58 acres of land gifted by Gajendra Nath Pradhan to Sabitribala Maity. In the event, any such settlements have been made the Revenue Officer concerned is directed to initiate proceedings Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and to arrange for annulment of the settlements and also to restore back possession of the lands in question to Sabitribala Maity.”

5. It is argued that in compliance of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court the respondent no.4 authority 4 though made correction in the relevant Record of Rights thereby incorporating the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ petitioners as Raiyats and thereby canceling and/or annulling the patta as had been given to the settlers. However, the said order dated 23.06.2004 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court has not been fully complied with inasmuch as the said respondent no.4 authority has failed and/or neglected to restore possession of the land in question to the writ petitioners, who are legal heirs of the said Gajendranath Pradhan. It is submitted by way a representation dated 28.04.2026 the writ petitioners brought the entire matter to the notice of the respondent no.4 authority with a request to take effective steps for restoration of the land in question as involved in the instant writ petition the writ 5 petitioners but the respondent no.4 authority has made no effort to comply request representation.

6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that from the report of Inspector-in-Charge jurisdictional police station it would reveal that no cognizable offence has been committed warranting police intervention.

7. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties it appears that admittedly by an order dated

23.06.2004 a Division Bench of this Court directed respondent/State restore back possession of the land in question to one Sabitribala Maity. Materials have been placed before this Court that 6 pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench of this Court correction in Record of Rights has been done by respondent no.4 authority. However, no action has been taken by the respondent no.4 authority restoration of possession as has been directed by the said Division Bench.

8. At this juncture, if I look to Section 6 and Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 it appears that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1995 (‘Act of 1997’ in short) is a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the said Act of 1997 and inaction and/or culpable negligence of an authority under the said specified Act comes under the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. Such being the position, this Court is constrained to hold that the present writ petitioners have chosen 7 a wrong forum for ventilating their grievances and for that reasons this Court is constrained to dismiss the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

9. Before parting with, this Court however grants liberty to the present writ petitioners to approach the appropriate forum on the selfsame cause of action and selfsame relief and in the event such approach is made within thirty (30) working days from today the said authority application within the time of limitation shall dispose application in accordance with without being influenced by any of the observations as made in the instant writ petition.

10. It is further made clear that while dismissing the instant writ petition this Court has not gone into the merits of the instant writ petition and, thus, all 8 points are kept open before appropriate authority, to whom the writ petitioners would approach if so advised.

11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)