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. 73 of 2026 Shyamal Kanti Bisui and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others For the petitioners : Mr. Biswaranjan Bhakat Ms. Shivani Pandey, Advs. For the State : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Gautam Dey, Mr. Jay Ranjan Dhar, Advs. Heard on : July 14, 2026. Judgment on : July 14, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal affirmed an order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on the ground of limitation, consequent to dismissal of the connected application for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the predecessor-in-interest/father of the petitioners filed a return in Form 7AA of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short “the 1955 Act”) in 1994. 4. A proceeding was subsequently initiated under Section 14T (3A) of the 1955 Act, which culminated in the petitioners’ land being vested by an order dated May 16, 2008. 5. A written objection was filed by the petitioners thereto, which was not being disposed of. 6. As such, an original application was filed before the Tribunal for disposal of the said objection, upon which the Tribunal, vide order dated November 15, 2018, disposed of the said application by granting leave to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the original order. Consequent thereto, an appeal was filed, bearing RA No. 14 of 2019, in connection with which the condonation application was filed and was dismissed by the appellate authority, giving rise to the present challenge. 7. Learned counsel submits that the original order of vesting suffered from palpable illegality in view of no notice having been given to the petitioners and the order being passed in the name of a dead person, that is, the writ petitioners’ father. 8. Learned counsel submits that the explanation furnished in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963”) was never considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, controverts the submissions of the petitioners and contends that the petitioners have been habitual defaulters. 10. Initially, upon obtaining an order passed in a writ petition in the year 1994, a Form 7AA was filed by the writ petitioners only on November 29, 2019, although, as per the 3 order of the writ court, the same was to be filed within four weeks, which ended on October 26, 2019. 11. Apart from the delay on such count, even subsequently, the matter travelled to the Tribunal, when a fresh opportunity was given to the petitioners to prefer an appeal within a month after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated November 15, 2018. Although the certified copy was obtained on January 4, 2019, the appeal was filed only on June 21, 2019, along with the application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. Even thereafter, the matter went up to the Tribunal, whereupon leave was granted to the writ petitioners to file an amended condonation application. 12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that even from the condonation application, it would be evident that the writ petitioners appeared in the proceeding under Section 14T(3A) of the 1955 Act. 13. From the order sheet thereof, it would be evident that the order dated March 10, 2008 was duly counter-signed by the writ petitioners, thereby indicating their knowledge of the said proceeding. 14. Thus, no plausible explanation for the huge delay of about eleven years in preferring the appeal was furnished, due to which both the appellate authority and the Tribunal were justified in rejecting such application. 15. We find from the amended application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963, filed by the writ petitioners themselves before the appellate authority, that admittedly they had appeared before the BL & LRO in the proceeding under Section 14T (3A) on March 10, 2008, which is also borne out by the signatures of the writ petitioners appearing in the order sheet of the said date. 4 16. Even thereafter, from the order dated March 31, 2008 passed in the said proceeding, we find that the BL & LRO directed notice to be served on all concerned, fixing the next date of hearing on April 8, 2008 at 11 am. 17. Vide order no. 4 dated April 2, 2008, the BL & LRO recorded that the notice was duly served. 18. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for hearing on April 8, 2008, that is, the assigned date and thereafter the BL & LRO proceeded to decide the matter. 19. Hence, even from the materials annexed to the present writ petition, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioners had full knowledge of the proceeding under Section 14T (3A), being Case No. 190 of 2008, and they even appeared in the said proceeding. 20. The plea that the notice was issued in the name of a dead person, that is, the deceased father of the writ petitioners, is specious, since a notice under the concerned provision cannot be construed on similar footing as a plaint in a suit. A notice is merely intended to inform the interested persons as to the hearing to be undertaken by the Revenue Officer. 21. In the facts of the present case, despite the notice having been issued in the name of the deceased father of the writ petitioners, by appearance in the said proceeding, the writ petitioners conceded to have notice of the proceeding and they participated in the same; thus, the petitioners cannot be permitted now to do a volte face and resile from that position, challenging the veracity of the notice itself. 22. Even from the subsequent orders passed in the said proceeding, as narrated above, we find ample evidence that notice of the next date of hearing was duly served on all concerned, including the writ petitioners. 5 23. The presumption of correctness attached to such official/judicial records has not been rebutted by the writ petitioners in any manner. 24. The meager explanation for the delay given in the amended Section 5 application was that the BL & LRO adjourned the hearing of the case but did not inform the petitioners the next date of hearing. 25. Such contention, however, is belied by the records of the proceedings before the BL & LRO, as indicated above. Even otherwise, it was for the writ petitioners, who actively participated in the proceeding at the inception, to take appropriate information of the next date, and not the duty of the BL & LRO at every step to give fresh notices to the participants therein. 26. In the event the writ petitioners had any grievance regarding the next date not being informed to them, nothing prevented them from writing to the BL & LRO specifically asking for the next date and if no reply to such query was received, to approach the Tribunal to have such grievance ventilated. Instead of doing anything of that sort, the writ petitioners cozily waited for a decade before approaching the authorities. 27. Even after leave was granted by the Tribunal to prefer the appeal, the appeal was not preferred within the period of one month from obtaining the certified copy, as per the order of the Tribunal, but about a month thereafter. 28. From the materials before us, we find that the writ petitioners were not only lacking in furnishing appropriate explanation for the long delay of about eleven years in preferring the appeal, but were negligent at each and every stage of the proceeding. 29. Thus, since the Tribunal adverted to the arguments of both parties and this Court otherwise agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, there is no scope of 6 interference merely on the ground that all the submissions made in the condonation application by the writ petitioners was not specifically enumerated in the impugned order in detail. 30. In such view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal or that of the appellate authority in dismissing the condonation application of the writ petitioners and consequentially dismissing their appeal, bearing RA No. 14 of 2019. 31. In such view of the matter, WPLRT No. 73 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the order dated December 23, 2025 passed by the Second Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in OA No. 2965 of 2023 (LRTT). 32. There will be no order as to costs. 33. 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 28 MNS.