IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar WPLRT No. 115 of 2025 Paban Kumar Sarkar @ Paban Sarkar -vs- The State of West Bengal and others For the appellant : Mr. Sattik Rout, Mr. Anupam Ghosh, Ms. Sudeshna Maji. For the State : Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Tamal Taru Panda. Heard on : August 18, 2025. Judgment on : August 18, 2025. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2 2. Despite service, none appears for the private respondent no. 5, namely, Laxmi Hasda, although the State, along with the petitioner, is represented by counsel. 3. Accordingly, we take up the matter for hearing ex parte against private respondent no. 5. 4. The present challenge has been preferred against a judgment and order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby the challenge preferred by the present petitioner against an order of the Sub-Divisional Land & Land Reforms Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur, in Appeal Case No. 80 of 2012, affirming an adjudication that the private respondent no. 5, Laxmi Hasda, was a ‘bargadar’, was turned down by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded owner of the property-in-dispute. It is contended that all the forums below failed to consider that although the private respondent no. 5, Laxmi Hasda, the daughter-in-law of one Hopna Murmu, was recorded as a bargadar, the forums overlooked the fact that the son of Hopna Murmu, namely, one Budhrai Murmu, the husband of Laxmi Hasda, was never recorded as a bargadar. 3 6. It is argued that in view of the son of Hopna Murmu himself having not been recorded as a bargadar, his wife Laxmi Hasda, claiming through her husband Budhrai (the son of Hopna), whose name was never recorded as a bargadar, did not acquire a right to be recorded as a bargadar. 7. It is insinuated by learned counsel for the petitioner that an objection was taken before the Tribunal to the effect that the said Budhrai had applied for being recorded as a bargadar and the said application was rejected by the authorities. Secondly, it is argued that the private respondent no. 5, Laxmi Hasda, did not prove before any of the authorities that she has been and is still cultivating the land-in-question, thus failing to satisfy the criteria which were otherwise necessary to be met by her in order to be declared as a bargadar. 8. Learned Senior Government Advocate, while opposing the application, contends that insofar as the second ground of challenge is concerned, the land owner/writ petitioner himself admitted before the first forum that the legal heirs of the deceased bargadar have been cultivating the aforesaid suit land since the death of the recorded original bargadar. 4 9. As such, the presumption under Section 21B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 operates and the presumption is against the land owner. 10. It is further submitted that no order was/has been produced on behalf of the land owner before any of the authorities or even before this Court to indicate the rejection of any application filed by Budhrai, the deceased husband of respondent no. 5, Laxmi Hasda. As such, there is nothing on record for the court to come to a conclusion that such application was dismissed on merits by holding that Budhrai did not qualify as a bargadar. 11. It is further argued that the mere fact that the name of Budhrai was not recorded as a bargadar does not preclude the private respondent no. 5, who also claims as a successor by way of inheritance of Hopna, the original bargadar, being her father-in-law, from being recorded as a bargadar despite her claim being routed through her deceased husband who was never recorded as a bargadar. 12. Upon careful consideration of the materials on record, we find that the argument that an application filed by Budhrai, the husband of private respondent no. 5, for being recorded as a 5 bargadar, was rejected by an orde, has been made for the first time before the Tribunal. 13. The materials on record do not reflect that such objection was raised either before the first forum or the appellate authority, against which the challenge was preferred before the Tribunal. 14. Thus, such factual question could not, in any event, be taken for the first time in the Tribunal. 15. Even otherwise, there is not even a scrap of paper to indicate as to whether any application was actually made by said Budhrai and, if so, whether it was rejected on merits, which might have precluded his wife, the private respondent no. 5, Laxmi Hasda herein, from being recorded as a bargadar. 16. In the absence of anything of such sort, we are unable to accept such submission of the writ petitioner. 17. Moreover, the mere fact that an intermediary in the chain of succession, in the present case, Budhrai, the husband of private respondent no. 5, was not recorded as a bargadar does not preclude a subsequent successor, private respondent no. 5, who claims as the wife of deceased Budhrai but also in the capacity of the daughter-in-law of the original 6 recorded bargadar Hopna Murmu, from being recorded as a bargadar. The only test to be applied is whether the person applying as a bardagar is a successor of the bargadar by inheritance in any manner whatsoever, the decree of succession not being relevant. 18. Hence, there was no error committed by the Tribunal or either of the forums below in recording the private respondent no. 5 as a bargadar. 19. Insofar as the issue of whether the private respondent no. 5 is still cultivating the disputed property is concerned, since the petitioner himself, before the first forum, categorically admitted that the heirs of the deceased recorded bargadar Hopna Murmu have been cultivating the land since after his death, there is no scope of the petitioner resiling from such position at this juncture. 20. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the Tribunal. 21. Thus, WPLRT No. 115 of 2025 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned judgment and order dated December 24, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 247/2017 (LRTT), 7 thereby recording the name of private respondent no. 5 Laxmi Hasda as a recorded bargadar of the disputed property. 22. There will be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent photostat certified copies of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)