Ct.No.19 D/L 03.07.2026 28 Saikat Mukherjee WPA/14700/2026 SK. ROWNAQZZAMAN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Dipak Kr. Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rajib Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder, Adv. Ms. Shreyashi Bhaduri, Adv. Mr. Sourish Mukherjee, Adv. .…For the Petitioners Mr. Siddharta Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv. …For the Union of India Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Jayita Dhar, Adv. …For the Respondent Nos.2&3 Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Jr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, Adv. …For the Respondent-State 1. The contending parties are represented by their respective learned counsel. 2. Affidavit-of-service as filed by the writ petitioners today is taken on record. 3. The subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is/are notices dated 1.6.2026 under section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (‘Act of 1955’ in short) whereby and whereunder the jurisdictional B.L.L.R.O. issued a notice for vesting to the custodian of enemy property of India. 4. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, at the very outset draws attention to this Court to Page Nos.39 to 59 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the order dated 19.9.2025 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 12982 of 2022. Attention of this Court is also drawn to similar judgments as passed by the selfsame co-ordinate Bench on 19.9.2025 in other writ petitions. It is submitted that from the said judgments dated 19.9.2025, it would reveal that in the said writ petition the subject-matter of challenge was an order passed by an Assistant Settlement Officer under section 44(2)(a) of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (‘Acquisition Act’ in short) against which an appeal has been preferred before Additional District Judge at Murshidabad. 5. It is submitted that on perusal of the said order dated 19.9.2025 it would reveal that the said co- ordinate Bench noticed that in view of section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (‘Act of 1997’ in short), such appeal is not maintainable before the said Additional District Judge and thus this High Court directed for transmission of the appeal records before the said Tribunal. 6. In his next fold of submission, it is further argued on behalf of the writ petitioners as on this day the said appeal records have not been transmitted from the court of learned Additional District Judge, Murshidabad, to the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. It is further submitted that subject-matter of the notices impugned in the instant writ petition is identical with the subject-matters of appeals which have been transferred to the said Tribunal by virtue of direction as passed by the co-ordinate Bench. It is, thus, submitted that considering the peculiar circumstances of the situation an interim order of stay may be granted in respect of the notices impugned. 7. Since none appears on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property, that is the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and since Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, learned counsel who usually represents Custodian of Enemy Property for India is present in Court, this Court requests Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel to represent the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities. 8. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners is hereby requested to serve a copy of the instant writ petition along with all annexures to Mr. Bhattacharya positively in course of the day. 9. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities is directed to regularise the appointment of Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya along with his junior Ms. Jayita Dhar. 10. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable since the action of an authority under a ‘specified Act’ under section 2(r) of the Act of 1997 is subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition which may not be entertained by this Court in view of section 6(b) of the Act of 1997 since such jurisdiction is vested with the Tribunal as constituted under section 4 of the Act of 1997. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that in the event the writ petitioners have got any grievance with regard to the order of vesting, he has remedy under section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (‘Act of 1968’ in short). 11. Mr. Guddu Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of India and its instrumentalities, supports the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya. 12. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the contending parties, it appears that in the event the writ petitioners have got any grievance with regard to the vesting and/or regarding non-compliance of the order dated 19.9.2025 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 12982 of 2022 and similar other writ petitions because of identical nature of lis, the writ petitioners have every remedy to assail the notices impugned herein under section 18 of the Act of 1968. No cogent explanation has been put forth by the learned advocate for the writ petitioners for not availing a statutory alternative remedy despite its availability. 13. With the aforementioned observation, WPA 14700 of 2026 is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) Later:- 1. After passing of the above order, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners prays for limited stay of the order impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. Such prayer is considered and refused. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)