Form No.J(2) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by way of a brief history of the matter, that initially a proceeding was filed by the present writ petitioner/owner for a direction on the private respondent/bargadar to pay his share of the produce in respect of the disputed land. An order was passed to that effect, which was challenged by way of an appeal bearing no. 366 of 2019 as well as an original application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

During pendency of the appeal and the parallel challenge against the self-same order before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, an order of termination of the bargadarship of the private respondent was passed under Section 18 of the 3 said Act for non-payment by the private respondent of such share of the produce as per the earlier direction.

In view of the termination order having been passed, the appellant authority, by way of an order bearing order no. 3 dated December 6, 2022, dismissed the appeal, bearing no. 366 of 2019, thereby recording that the final order of termination had been passed and that a parallel challenge against the self-same order was pending before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal, vide order dated February 18, 2025, dismissed the challenge preferred before the Tribunal, on the recording that the challenge had become infructuous because the D.L.& L.R.O., Birbhum had already disposed of the appeal and appropriate steps would be taken against the order passed by the D.L.& L.R.O., Birbhum.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the order bearing Order no. 4 dated February 26, 2020 passed in the proceeding under Section 18(1)(b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, whereby the barga right of the then recorded bargadar, i.e. the private respondent, was terminated. 4

Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that an appeal is pending against the order of termination. However, no number thereof is disclosed to us. Rather, from the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is clearly reflected that an impression was given by the private respondent to the Tribunal that appeal no. 366 of 2019 was pending against the order of termination under Section 18.

However, from the records annexed to the writ petition, which are certified copies of the orders passed in the said appeal itself, it is clearly evident that the appeal had been filed not against the termination order but against the initial order directing the private respondent/bargadar to furnish his share of the produce in favour of the owner. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that any appeal was preferred against the order terminating the private respondent’s bargadarship at all.

Hence, the termination order has attained finality and there is no option before the respondent authorities but to reflect such termination and correct the records-of-rights accordingly by recording the name of the current bargadar, if any, in respect of the land-in-question. 5

The appeal against the initial order directing the private respondent to pay his share of the produce having already been dismissed as infructuous, the order of the learned Tribunal was perverse, inasmuch as the said order was based on no material at all.

In view of the above, we do not find any scope of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner for correcting the Records of Rights by incorporating the name of the current bargadar, in view of the same being merely a corollary of the order of termination of the bargadarship of the private respondent, if taken to its logical conclusion.

Accordingly, WPLRT 108 of 2025 is allowed on contest against the private respondent, thereby setting aside the judgment dated March 21, 2025 passed by the Third Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA 736 of 2022 (LRTT) and directing the concerned B.L.& L.R.O., Dubrajpur, being the respondent no. 3 herein, to immediately correct the Records of Right in respect of the disputed land by reflecting the name of the current bargadar and cancelling the name of the private respondent as a bargadar from the concerned Records of Rights. Such correction shall be carried 6 out at the earliest, preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order to the respondent no. 3.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)