Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar W.P.L.R.T. 7 of 2011 Md. Soleman, since deceased, representatives by his legal heirs Taslema and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty Mr. Debajyoti Mondal Mr. Achintya Mukherjee Mr. Swastik Polley For the State : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Snr. Adv. Mr. Debashish Chakraborty Heard on : 21.08.2025 & 26.08.2025 Judgment on : 26.08.2025 2 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the petitioners’ prayer for a direction on the respondents to decide the representation of the writ petitioners on merits by holding that the same was barred by limitation due to the delay of about sixty years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners cites certain judgments in support of his arguments. 3. The contention raised by the writ petitioners before the respondent-authorities, as revealed from the purported application in the form of a representation before the Collector, Malda, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Malda, the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chanchal and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), Chanchal, indicates that on the strength of an unregistered settlement by way of a written agreement dated March 10, 1951, the writ petitioners claimed that their predecessor-in-interest and they have been in actual physical possession of the property all along and that the property was vested in the State of West Bengal under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 without any prior notice to them. 3 4. As alleged in the representation, the writ petitioners only recently (immediately prior to the making of the application on January 18, 2010) learnt of the vesting and accordingly filed the representation seeking a rectification of the records-of-rights. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ application. 6. It is submitted that there were three instances of exercise of preparation and revision of the records-of-rights, including the CS records, the RS records and LR records. 7. Throughout this period, the writ petitioners never put up a challenge on the strength of the purported settlement/agreement in their favour. 8. Moreover, learned senior counsel relies on Section 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to argue that a transfer of a plot of land of a raiyat cannot be made except by an instrument which is registered and the Registering Officer shall not accept for registration any such instrument unless the parameters laid down in the said Section are fulfilled. 9. Learned senior counsel also argues that the judgments cited by the petitioners are not germane in the present context. 4 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the State has a point in arguing that the judgments cited before us are not directly apt on the issue involved. 11. In Atul Chandra Mahato and others vs. State of West Bengal and others reported at 2003 (1) CHN 626, the court was considering the cancellation of an instrument within the contemplation of Section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, which stipulates certain restrictions as regards transfers. 12. The three-Judge Bench, in Atul Chandra Mahato (supra), also scrutinized the scope of Section 44(2a) of the Act in respect of who are the “persons interested” who shall be given opportunity of being heard before an entry in the finally published records- of-rights is revised. 13. In the present case, the petitioners challenge the vesting of a particular property. There is no allegation that any cancellation of transfer under Section 5A of the 1953 Act has been effected. 14. Moreover, this is not a scenario where the applicability of Section 44(2a) of the Act has come under the scanner, at least at this stage. 15. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Md. Roushan Ali Shaikh vs. The State of West Bengal and others reported at (2000) 2 CAL LT 480(HC) was rendered in the context of a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 5 The learned Single Judge held, inter alia, that in the said case there was no dispute that the person who granted settlement in favour of the father of the plaintiff therein was a raiyat and therefore the position of the plaintiff’s father was that of an under-raiyat and the registered Kabuliyat showed that such tenancy expired with the month of Magh, 1362 BS. 16. In such context, the learned Single Judge considered the contention of the parties as to whether the appellant’s father, and, after his death, the appellant, were in possession of the property and the revisional records-of-rights recorded such possession. 17. In the representation made by the petitioners, nothing of such sort has been disclosed, nor has the stage come to return a finding that the petitioners’ and their predecessor’s continued physical possession of the disputed land is admitted. 18. The petitioners, only on the strength of a purported written agreement dated March 10, 1951, seek to assert rights in respect of the land-in-question. 19. Undoubtedly, the State has a point in arguing that the present representation seeking a rectification of the records of rights may be palpably time-barred. 20. However, unless a hearing is given to the writ petitioners by the appropriate authorities and the writ petitioners are granted the 6 opportunity to produce the documents on which they want to rely, it would be absolutely premature for either this court or the Tribunal to pre-decide the issues raised in the representation. 21. The allegation of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal was restricted merely to the inaction on the part of the respondent- authorities in not deciding the writ petitioners’ representation. 22. Thus, the Tribunal, at this inchoate stage, acted completely de hors its jurisdiction in pre-deciding the contentions raised in the representation itself by holding that the same was barred by limitation. 23. Thus, we are of the opinion that such pre-judging of the issues involved in the representation by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 24. Accordingly, WPLRT 7 of 2011 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated June 23, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 916 of 2010 (LRTT) and directing the respondent no.4, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chanchal, Block-II to decide on the representation of the writ petitioners dated January 18, 2010, annexed at page-33 of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and upon giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners and to all persons 7 concerned for production of documents and of hearing, preferably within November 30, 2025. 25. CAN 2 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 9035 of 2012 and CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 6690 of 2019) also stand disposed of consequentially. 26. There will be no order as to costs. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Uday Kumar, J.) AD-15 AK