Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya W.P.L.R.T. 75 of 2026 Ajmir Mondal and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Arup Kumar Das Mr. Bapin Baidya For the private respondent nos.6 to 10 : Mr. Sudip Sarkar Mr. Sukdeb Sarkar Ms. Sneha Maity Heard on : 30.06.2026 Judgment on : 30.06.2026 2 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The present challenge has been preferred against a judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal allowed an original application filed by the private respondents and set aside an order of the Appellate Authority. 2. The Appellate Authority, by the said order, had reversed the decision of the BL & LRO, Kultali rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for recording their name as bargadars. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners assails the impugned judgment on the ground that in view of the cultivation and possession of the subject properties by the writ petitioners having been proved, the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority. 4. It is further submitted, in consonance with the grounds taken in the writ petition, that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were recorded bargadars in respect of the land-in- question and after their demise, their sons were cultivating the said land and that it is settled principle of law that once name of the bargadars have been recorded, the same cannot be cancelled without due process of law under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1955 Act”). 3 5. Learned counsel further submits that the cancellation of barga is an exclusive jurisdiction of the Bhagchas Officer under the provisions of the 1955 Act and the Civil Court does not have any authority to decide such issue. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents controverts the petitioners’ arguments and contends that the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgment in view of the writ petitioners having failed to prove that they had been delivering the shares of produce in respect of the land to the owners. 7. We find from the order of the BL & LRO, which was reversed by the Appellate Authority and restored by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, that the same is not only elaborate but adverts to all relevant facets of the matter. 8. It transpires, in brief, that initially the private respondents had filed a suit claiming title to the property as well as permanent injunction, which was dismissed. 9. In appeal, the said dismissal was reversed and permanent injunction was granted in favour of the private respondents. 10. Subsequently, the names of the writ petitioners were recorded as bargadars, which was set aside by a writ court on the ground that no notice before such recording was given to the owners. 4 11. Thereafter, the private respondents’ names were recorded in respect of the subject property, which was also quashed in a writ petition, granting liberty to the private respondents to file a fresh application. 12. Ultimately, the BL & LRO, while rejecting the writ petitioners’ prayer for being recorded as bargadars, came to the conclusion that the exact identity of the land being cultivated by the writ petitioners could not be established as well as that the writ petitioners could not produce any receipt of the shares of crops being handed over to the owners by the writ petitioners. 13. The Appellate Authority reverse the said decision primarily on the premise of the cultivation and possession of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject land, being oblivious to the settled legal principle that the delivery of the landlord’s share of produce of the land is a sine qua non for establishing Bargadarship. 14. The learned Tribunal, while reversing the Appellate Authority’s judgment, took into consideration several decisions, including those rendered in Abdul Jalil Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported at 1987 (1) CLJ 422, and Gopal Chandra Das vs. State of West Bengal, reported at 1995 (1) CHN 363, as well as Sk. Sattar vs. State of West Bengal, reported at 2006 (3) CHN 418, to come to the conclusion that mere possession or cultivation is 5 insufficient unless it is established that the cultivator delivered the landlord’s share of produce and that the essence of bargadarship lies in the relationship of share-cropping and burden lies on the claimant to prove such relationship by cogent evidence, including proof of delivery of produce. 15. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that absence of any receipt or evidence showing delivery of share of produce is fatal to a claim of bargardarship. 16. In the absence of any such proof, the learned Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in reversing the Appellate Authority’s findings and restoring the decision of the BL & LRO, thereby dismissing the claim of the writ petitioners of bargadarship in respect of the subject land. 17. Accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the impugned judgment. 18. Hence, WPLRT 75 of 2026 is dismissed on contest against the private respondents and ex parte against the State, thereby affirming the judgment dated March 31, 2026 passed by the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 11 of 2004 (LRTT). 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. There will be no order as to costs. 6 21. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD-43 AK