Ct.No.19 D/L 03.07.2026 03 Saikat Mukherjee WPA/13256/2026 MD. ABDUL BASIR SK AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, Adv. Md. Yusuf Ali, Adv. .…For the Petitioners Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Jayita Dhar, Adv. …For the Union of India Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Jr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Akash Adak, Adv. …For the Respondent-State 1. The petitioners and the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 and Respondent-State and its instrumentalities are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is/are notices dated 1.6.2026 as issued by the Revenue Officer, Office of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Beldanga-I, Murshidabad, under section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (‘Act of 1955’ in short). 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, submits before this Court that while issuing the impugned notices the Respondent No.6 authority failed to consider that the land in question as involved in the said notices are rayati land and those lands have been recorded in the name of the writ petitioners in different records of rights, copies of which have been annexed in the instant writ petition. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that without considering the right, title and interest of the writ petitioners as ‘raiyat’, the impugned notice has been issued which may be set aside by issuing appropriate writ/writs in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8, in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (‘Act of 1997’ in short). It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that under section 2(4) of the Act of 1997 the Act of 1955 is a specified Act and, therefore, an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence can be challenged before the Tribunal as has been constituted under section 4 of the Act of 1997. 5. In his next limb of submission, Mr. Bhattacharya took me to section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (‘Act of 1968’ in short) and submitted that in the event the writ petitioners are at all aggrieved by an order of vesting of a property as enemy property in the custodian, he has a remedy under section 18 of the Act of 1968. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that despite availability of alternative, efficacious, effective and statutory remedy, the writ petitioners have approached in writ jurisdiction of this Court and on this score alone the instant writ petition may be dismissed. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that in paragraph-10 of the instant writ petition the writ petitioners on affidavit stated that the land of the writ petitioners stood vested to the custodian as per the Act of 1968. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 in his usual fairness has handed over a copy of the vesting order to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners. 8. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the contending parties, this Court finds that it is the candid admission of the writ petitioners that the properties of the writ petitioners have been vested to the custodian of the enemy property and this Court also finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 that instead of approaching the Central Government under section 18 of the Act of 1968, the writ petitioners for the best reasons known to them have approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction to ventilate their grievance despite availability of alternative and statutory remedy. 9. With the aforementioned observation, WPA 13256 of 2026 is dismissed. 10. Consequently, the interim order as passed on 17.6.2026 in connection with the instant writ petition stands hereby vacated. 11. No order as to costs. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)