IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.19 11.09.26 Item No.10 Sws.M WPA 3972 of 2024 Laxmi Kanta Sahoo & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bharat Chandra Simai …for the petitioners Dr. Siddhartha Goswami ….for the State Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Souradeep Banerjee Ms. Sanjana Sinha Ms. Aditi Gupta ….for the respondent Nos. 10,11 and 12 1. The writ petitioners, the respondent/ State and the respondent no. 12 are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. On behalf of the respondent No. 12, an affidavit-in- opposition is filed, which is taken on record. The writ petitioners file an affidavit-in-reply, which is also taken on record. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs against the respondent/authorities, commanding them to take appropriate steps against the private respondents for restoration of the land to its original character, that is from ‘pond’ to ‘bastu’ and ‘agricultural land’ in respect of Plot Nos. 604/1224, 2 J.L. No. 105, under Mouza – Jumki Khatian No. 148, 1311, 1312 and 1331. 4. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that the principal grievance of the writ petitioners is that the private respondents have most illegally converted the aforementioned plot of land which is contiguous to the land of the writ petitioners as a water body, as a result whereof the writ petitioners’ household property situated on such adjacent land is going to be damaged. 5. From the materials as placed before this Court, it appears that complaining such alleged illegal conversion the writ petitioners have approached different authorities under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but in vain. 6. On careful perusal of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (‘Act’ in short), it appears that under Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is a specified act and under Section 6 of the said Act, an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified act is within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal as has been established under Section 4 of the said Act. 3 7. In view of the aforementioned legislative mandate, this Court is constrained to hold that the writ petitioners have chosen a wrong forum for ventilating their grievance. 8. This Court thus holds that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. 9. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)