Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 May, 2025
Item No.15
13.05.2025
Court. No. 19
GB
W.P.A. 17685 of 2024
Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subhankar Nag,
Ms. Mahima Cholera,
Ms. Yamini Mookherjee,
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. Soumitra Bahdyopadhyay,
Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal,
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
... for the State.
1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners
have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs
against the respondent authorities commanding them
for removal of the encroachments and/or signboards
from the properties belonging to the writ petitioners
situate at 65, Jalamath, Mirpara Road, Liluah and at
58, Netaji Subhas Road, Liluah, Horah – 711204 along
with other ancillary reliefs.
2. In course of hearing, learned advocate for the writ
petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this
Court to page no.33 of the instant writ petition being a
copy of notice dated 30.10.2000 as issued by the
Revenue Officer under Section 14T of the West Bengal
Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘said Act of 1955’ in short). It is submitted that by
issuing the said notice under Section 14T of the said
Act of 1955, the said Revenue Officer asked the writ
petitioners to appear before him and to show cause as
to why he shall not proceed under Section 14T of the
2
said Act of 1955 for taking appropriate steps for
vesting of the excess land over the ceiling area.
3. On behalf of the writ petitioners attention of this
Court is drawn to page nos.51 and 52 of the instant
writ petition being a copy of the order dated
12.05.2023 as passed in Case No.M.A. 1240 of 2022
by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said tribunal’
in short) wherein the legality, validity and correctness
of the said notice dated 30.10.2000 was challenged at
the instance of the writ petitioners and wherein the
said tribunal after considering the entire materials as
placed before it, passed an order of injunction
directing the parties to the said case to maintain
complete ‘status quo’ as it stood on the said day in
respect of the property in question as involved in the
said proceeding.
4. At this juncture, learned advocate for the writ
petitioners draws attention of this Court to page
nos.63 to 63C of the instant writ petition being various
photographs as taken on behalf of the writ petitioners.
It is submitted that from the said photographs, it
would reveal that in utter violation of the said order
dated 12.05.2023 as passed by the said tribunal in the
aforementioned case, the respondent authorities have
most illegally put some flex and/or signboards and,
thus, made an attempt to encroach the property which
is the subject matter of the said notice under Section
14T of the said Act of 1955 and which is under
3
challenge in the aforementioned case before the said
tribunal.
5. It is, thus, submitted that on account of such illegal act
on the part of the respondent authorities, appropriate
relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in
accordance with the prayers made in the instant writ
petition.
6. Per contra, Mr. De, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent/State
submits before this Court that this High Court sitting
in a single Bench cannot entertain such writ petition
in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Land
Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘said Act of 1997’ in short). It is
further submitted by Mr. De that under the provisions
of the said Act of 1997 an action of the tribunal can be
challenged by filing a writ petition before a Division
Bench of this High Court under Section 11 of the said
Act of 1997.
7. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire
materials as placed before this Court. This Court has
given its anxious consideration over the submission of
the learned advocates for the contending parties.
8. On careful consideration of the entire materials, it
appear to this Court that it is the grievance of the writ
petitioners that the respondent authorities have
flouted the order of the tribunal as passed on
12.05.2023 by putting some banners and/or
signboards and/or flex on the properties of the writ
4
petitioners which is the subject matter of the said
notice under Section 14T of the said Act of 1955 and
which is also a subject matter of Case No.M.A.1240 of
2022 as pending before the said tribunal.
9. At this juncture, this Court proposes to look to some
of the provisions of the said Act of 1997. Section 13 of
the said Act of 1997 reads as under :-
“13. Execution of order passed by
Tribunal.- An interim order in, and an order
finally disposing of, any matter or proceeding
by the Tribunal, including an order as to costs,
may be executed in such manner as may be
prescribed.”
10. Section 14 of the said Act of 1997 is quoted
hereinbelow in verbatim:-
“14. Proceedings to be deemed to be
judicial proceedings.- All proceedings
before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be
judicial proceedings within the meaning of
sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal
Code.”
11. Section 15 of the said Act of 1997 is quoted
hereinbelow in verbatim:-
“15. Power to punish for contempt of
Tribunal.- The Tribunal shall have and shall
exercise, the same jurisdiction, power and
authority in respect of contempt of the
Tribunal as a High Court has and may
exercise, and, for this purpose, the provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall have
effect, subject to the modification that –
(a) the reference therein to a High Court shall
be construed as a reference to the Tribunal,
and
5
(b) the reference therein to the Advocate-
General in section 15 of the said Act shall be
construed as a reference to the Advocate-
General of the State.
12. On careful perusal of the aforementioned legislative
provisions it reveals to this Court that while enacting
Section 13 of the said Act of 1997, the legislatures on
their own wisdom had empowered the tribunal to
execute its own order whether it is interim or final. It
further appears to this Court that a proceeding before
the said tribunal is deemed to be a judicial proceeding
and Section 15 of the said Act of 1997 clearly
empowers the said tribunal to initiate contempt
proceeding as per the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, in the event the said tribunal finds
that its order, either interim or final has been
disobeyed.
13. Coming to the factual aspects of this case, this Court
finds that the instant writ petitioners practically
approach this Court for violation of the order of the
tribunal as passed on 12.05.2023.
14. The question now fell for consideration before this
Court as to whether this Court will entertain the
instant writ petition despite availability of the
alternative statutory efficacious remedy.
15. A similar question was considered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the reported decision of U.P. State
Spinning Company Limited versus R.S.
6
Pandey & Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“11……………Despite the existence of an
alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction
or discretion of the High Court to grant relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the
same time, it cannot be lost sight of that
though the matter relating to an alternative
remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction
of the case, normally the High Court should
not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious
alternative remedy. If somebody approaches
the High Court without availing the
alternative remedy provided, the High Court
should ensure that he has made out a strong
case or that there exist good grounds to invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction.”
16. ………….There are two well-
recognised exceptions to the doctrine of
exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when
the proceedings are taken before the forum
under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it
is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move
the High Court for quashing the proceedings
on the ground that they are incompetent
without a party being obliged to wait until
those proceedings run their full course.
Secondly, the doctrine has no application
when the impugned order has been made in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
We may add that where the proceedings
themselves are an abuse of process of law the
High Court in an appropriate case can
entertain a writ petition.”
16. Keeping in mind the proposition of law as decided in
the case of U.P. State Spinning Company Limited
7
(supra), if I look to the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, it does not appear to this Court that the
writ petitioners before this Court has been able to
make out a case, even a prima facie case for invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of
adequate efficacious alternative statutory remedy.
17. It further appears to this Court that no case has been
made out on the part of the respondent authorities
that either the principles of natural justice has not
been followed or in the meantime any of the
provisions of the said Act of 1997 has been declared
ultra vires for which the jurisdiction of the said
tribunal has become nugatory.
18. In view of such, this Court, thus, holds that for not
availing any alternative efficacious statutory remedy
and on account of failure on the part of the writ
petitioners to make out a strong case for invoking
extraordinary and plenary jurisdiction of this Court,
this Court considers that the instant writ petition
cannot be held to be maintainable.
19. With the aforementioned observations WPA 17685 of
2024 is dismissed.
20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of
all formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link