April 21, 2025 Sl. No.4 Court No.36 debajyoti/s.biswas CPAN 431 of 2025 With CAN 1 2025 In CO 1431 of 2023 Durjodhan Ghuku vs. Smt. Kakali Hazra Mr. Animesh Paul .... for the applicant CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for restoration of CPAN 431 of 2025, which was dismissed for default on April 7, 2025. The grounds are sufficient for recalling of the order dated April 7, 2025. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. CPAN 431 of 2025 is restored to its original file and number. In re: CPAN 431 of 2025 The petitioner alleges contempt on the part of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur, Howrah in disposing of his barga case. CO 1431 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner, challenging an order by which the prayer for adjournment of Title Suit No.392 of 2012, till disposal of the barga case which was pending before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur, Howrah, was rejected. According to the petitioner, the merits of the suit would be dependent on the decision of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur. If the name of the petitioner was recorded as a bargadar, such 2 recording would serve as vital evidence in his favour. The prayer for interim injunction was refused on the ground that the petitioner could not show a single scrap of paper that he was a bargadar in respect of the property in question. The suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from disturbing the petitioner with his possession and cultivation. The suit was filed during the pendency of the application before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur. The defendants in the suit contended before this court that although the petitioner had filed the application for recording his name as bargadar, no steps had been taken by him for disposal of the said application. Paragraph 4 of the order passed in civil revisional application recorded that a Co-ordinate Bench had already directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur to dispose of the barga case expeditiously. Thus, this court dismissed the revisional application, inter alia, holding that it was the petitioner’s duty to get his application disposed of or approach the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in case there was a delay in disposal of his application. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur for immediate disposal of the application which was directed to be disposed of within two months. The Trial Court was directed not to 3 proceed with the suit for a period of two months or until the decision of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur, whichever was earlier. It is submitted that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur has not disposed of the matter and as such the suit court is proceeding. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for contempt. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the non-disposal of his barga case, he has the liberty to approach the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal for necessary orders. Moreover, it appears that several notices were issued to the petitioner by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Domjur, Howrah for hearing on various dates. Thus this court does not find any deliberate and intentional violation of the order of this court. Accordingly, the contempt application is disposed of. Contempt proceedings are dropped. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)