Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya WPLRT No. 38 of 2026 Shri Kenapada Mukherjee and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Arka Pratim Chowdhury Mr. Samrat Saha, Ms. Aisharwya Roy, Ms. Dipanwita Das, Advs. For the State : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Jayita Chakraborty, Mr. Suman Banerjee, Advs. Heard on : July 7, 2026. Judgment on : July 7, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petitioners have virtually challenged an order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 14U(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Act”). 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners’ deed, which was of 1983, was executed much prior to the other deeds apparently considered by the prescribed authority, the said deed of the petitioners was not considered while passing the order impugned herein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the exceptional circumstances and urgency involved, the challenge has been preferred directly to the Tribunal and thereafter before this Court. 6. It is submitted that interim orders be passed to protect the property in the meantime. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayers. 8. We find that admittedly, instead of preferring an appeal under Section 54 of the 1955 Act, the order of the prescribed authority under Section 14U(3) has directly been assailed before the Tribunal and thereafter before this Court. 9. Since such challenge is not maintainable before either of the two forums, the same, if entertained, would deprive either of the parties from two forums of challenge and as we do not find any exceptional circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the challenge before the Tribunal is not fit to be entertained. 10. Hence, there arises no question of this Court passing any protective order in favour of the petitioners at this stage. 11. However, in order to avoid unnecessary prolongation of the non-maintainable litigation before the Tribunal and unnecessary ignominy of the petitioners, it would only be appropriate if the Tribunal application is dismissed as not maintainable, granting liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer an appropriate challenge before the appropriate authority. 3 12. Accordingly, WPLRT 38 of 2026 is disposed of by dismissing Original Application No. 464 of 2026 pending before the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appropriate challenge under the appellate provision of Section 54 of the 1955 Act against the impugned order of the prescribed authority, subject to limitation and subject to the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the facts of the case. 13. In the event the petitioners prefer such an appeal, it is expected that the same will be decided as expeditiously as possible. 14. It is further clarified that the appellate authority shall not be influenced on merits in any manner by any of the observations made either by the Tribunal or this Court and shall decide the appeal independently and in accordance with law. 15. It will be open to the petitioners also to seek urgent interim relief in connection with the appeal, if preferred, before the appellate authority itself. 16. There will be no order as to costs. 17. The parties as well as all concerned shall act on the server copy of this order for the purpose of compliance, without insisting upon prior production of certified copy thereof. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) D/L 41 MNS.