Calcutta High Court
WPLRT/112/2026 of ARATI MUKHERJEE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 7 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya WPLRT No. 112 of 2026 Arati Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and others For the petitioner :
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
&
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya WPLRT No. 112 of 2026
Arati Mukherjee
Vs.
State of West Bengal and others
For the petitioner : Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Jayita Chakraborty, Mr. Arhat Biswas, Mr. S. Sarkar, Advs.
Heard on : July 7, 2026.
Judgment on : July 7, 2026.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
2. Despite service, none appears for the private respondent, although the petitioner and the State are represented through counsel.
3. The ambit of the writ petition is short.
4. Initially, the petitioner approached the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO) with a representation for appropriate relief in view of the private respondent/bargadar allegedly not delivering the share of produce of the crops in respect of the subject land to the petitioner/raiyat.
5. There being a delay in disposal of the same, the petitioner approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, upon which an appropriate direction was given.
6. Thereafter, the BL & LRO duly initiated a proceeding under Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”). However, there being a delay in disposal of the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal again.
7. In the meantime, the BL & LRO took a stand that in view of a preemption proceeding pending in respect of the subject land, the application could not be disposed of.
8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the said preemption proceeding was disposed of in the year 2023.Being thus constrained, the petitioner again came up with a representation to dispose of the proceeding under Section 18(1) of the 1955 Act as expeditiously as possible.
9. Since there was a delay in disposal of the representation itself as well as the main proceeding, the petitioner had to move the Tribunal, upon which the impugned order dated December 12, 2025 was passed, merely directing the concerned BL & LRO to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and not the main proceeding.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the long pendency of the proceeding under Section 18(1) of the 1955 Act, bearing Bhag Chas Case No. 44 of 2013, the concerned BL & LRO ought to have been directed by the Tribunal to dispose of the said proceeding itself, instead of the representation seeking early disposal of the same.
11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner.
12. Due to long pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner has had to run from pillar to post and deserves an expeditious disposal of the same.
13. Accordingly, WPLRT No. 112 of 2026 is disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated December 12, 2025 passed by the Fourth Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in OA No. 684 of 2025 (LRTT), to the extent that the concerned BL & LRO, Polba-Dadpur Block, being respondent no. 4 herein, is directed to dispose of Bhag Chas Case No. 44 of 2013, pending before the respondent no. 4 under Section 18(1) of the 1955 Act at the behest of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the respondent no. 4, in accordance with law and upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
15. The parties as well as all concerned shall act on the server copy of this order for the purpose of compliance, without insisting upon prior production of certified copy thereof.
I agree.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
D/L 39 MNS.