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. 130 of 2026 Ruhul Amin Mondal and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata, Advs. For the State : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Mr. Nilanjan Pal, Mr. Swapnamoy Sarkar, Advs. For the respondent nos. 5 and 6 : Mr. Masud Karim, Adv. For the respondent nos. 7 to 12 : Mr. Golam Karim Chowdhury, Mr. Md. Asfak Alam, Advs. Heard on : July 14, 2026. Judgment on : July 14, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (Tribunal) has directed a proceeding 2 initiated under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”) to be disposed of expeditiously within three months from the date of communication of the order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the predecessor-in- interest of the private respondents herein initially took out an application for correction of the records of rights, which being granted, an appeal was preferred by the vendor of the present writ petitioners. Such appeal succeeded, thereby setting aside the order obtained by the private respondents’ predecessor and directing the names of the vendor of the petitioners to be restored. 3. It is submitted that thereafter an application for implementation of the appellate authority’s order was taken out, which was subsequently disposed of as well. 4. Meanwhile, an application was taken out before the Tribunal for early disposal of the implementation application. 5. Although the implementation application had already been disposed of at the relevant juncture, the Tribunal, under the mistaken notion that it was still pending, directed it to be disposed of expeditiously. However, pursuant to such direction, a fresh proceeding was initiated, which turned out against the vendor of the writ petitioners and in favour of the private respondents. 6. In the meantime, the present writ petitioners purchased the property from their vendor and had their names mutated in the land records. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such order of mutation is an appealable one and no appeal having been preferred against the same to the knowledge of the petitioners, the mutation cannot be negated by the notice under Section 57 of the 1955 Act. 3 8. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, contend that in the impugned order of the Tribunal itself, the proceeding initiated by the notice under Section 57, wherein the present petitioners were also some of the noticees, was merely directed to be disposed of. 9. Thus, it is argued by the respondents that the writ petitioners can ventilate all their grievances in the said proceeding itself. 10. We find substance in the contention of the respondents. 11. By the impugned order, the Tribunal merely directed expeditious disposal of the proceeding initiated by the notices under Section 57 of the 1955 Act. 12. Thus, it would be premature on the part of both the Tribunal and this Court to advert to the merits of the contentions raised by either of the parties, which would tantamount to pre-judging the issues pending before the concerned Revenue Officer, being the BL & LRO, in the proceeding initiated by Section 57 of the 1955 Act. 13. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 14. However, we make it clear that all points urged before us shall be open to be contended by the petitioners in the proceeding under Section 57 of the 1955 Act. 15. Similarly, the respondents and all interested persons, in consonance with the impugned order of the Tribunal, shall be at liberty to raise their contentions in connection with the said proceeding as well. 16. With the above observations, WPLRT No. 130 of 2026 is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated December 22, 2025, passed by the Third Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O. A. No. 1071 of 2025 (LRTT). 4 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) D/L 26. MNS.