Calcutta High Court
WPLRT/68/2026 of MANOWARA BIBI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 18 May 2026
2026. MNS. WPLRT No. 68 of 2026 Manowara Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Animesh Mukherjee, Mr. Milan Nandy, Mr. Shahjamalo Hazra, Mr. Kazi Arif Iqbal, Advs. … for the petitioner. Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Mr. Subhajit Das, Advs. …for the respondent no. 5. 1.
D/L.63.
May 18, 2026.
MNS.
WPLRT No. 68 of 2026
Manowara Bibi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Animesh Mukherjee,
Mr. Milan Nandy,
Mr. Shahjamalo Hazra,
Mr. Kazi Arif Iqbal, Advs.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee,
Mr. Subhajit Das, Advs.
…for the respondent no. 5.
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. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
2. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no further service on the State is being directed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated January 30, 2026, the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner for a direction on the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (BL&LRO) to dispose of a representation of the petitioner dated September 9, 2025, on the ground that the same had become infructuous.
4. However, it is submitted that the BL&LRO had earlier decided a different representation and the representation dated September 9, 2025, which was the subject matter of the Original Application, is still to be disposed of.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent/raiyat, although not disputing in principle the augments of the petitioner on the above account, submits that the bargadar, that is the petitioner, at this juncture, does not have a right to prevent the transfer of the subject property by the raiyat in favour of third parties.
6. At best, it is submitted, such transfer shall be subject to the rights of the bargadar.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appearing parties, we find that although the Tribunal proceeded on a mistaken notion to dismiss the original application as infructuous, since the representation, which was the subject matter of the same, has not yet been disposed of, however, since at the present juncture the rights of the bargadar would be premature, as even if any transfer is effected by the private respondent/raiyat in favour of third parties, such transfer would be subject to the rights of the bargadar, we choose to dispose of the present writ petition with the following observation.
8. WPLRT No. 68 of 2026 is disposed of with the observation that in view of the transfer, if any, effected by the private respondent/raiyat being subject to the rights of the bargadar in the event it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the right of bargadarship in the subject property, the representation of the petitioner is premature and, as such, not required to be disposed of further.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)