Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukumar Pathak vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
&
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
WPLRT 108 of 2025
Sukumar Pathak
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee,
Ms. Sima Ghosh,
Mr. Jahangir Hossain,
Ms. Ankhi Koyal, Advs.
For the respondent no. 5 : Mr. Amit Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
Heard on : August 25, 2025.
Judgment on : August 25, 2025.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J.:
1. Despite service, none appears for the State, although both the
petitioner and the private respondent are represented through
counsel.
2
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the
impugned order, the learned Tribunal proceeded on a palpably
erroneous premise that an appeal against an order of
termination of the bargadarship of the private respondent
under Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
is pending and on such premise, refused to pass a direction on
the B.L.& L.R.O. to correct the Records of Rights pursuant to
such termination.
3. 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.
4. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
said Act for non-payment by the private respondent of such
share of the produce as per the earlier direction.
5. 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.
6. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
2025:CHC-AS:1628-DB
out at the earliest, preferably within one month from the date of
communication of this order to the respondent no. 3.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
14. 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.)