14.07.2026 Item No.20 Ct. No.19 KS W.P.A. 14826 of 2026 Md. Mahfuzul Alam Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta Ms. Laboni Bar Ms. Payel Mondal ….. For the Petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, S.S.C. Ms. Joyita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar …..For the State Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee …..For the Union of India 1. Parties are represented through their respective learned counsel. 2. On behalf of the writ petitioner, Supplementary Affidavit is filed, which is taken on record. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, at the very outset, submits before this Court that due to typographical error in ‘Prayer – b’ of the instant writ petition, the impugned notice dated ‘17.06.2026’ has been typed as ‘19.06.2026’, which may be read as ‘17.06.2026’. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in course of his submission, draws the attention of this Court to Page No.44 of the instant writ petition being, a copy of the notice dated 2 17.06.2026, as issued by the respondent no.7 authority under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, “Act of 1955”). 5. It is submitted that pursuant to the impugned notice, the respondent no.7 authority directed the participation of the petitioner in the process of vesting of the property particulars of which have been mentioned in the schedule of the said notice. 6. At this juncture, attention of this Court is drawn to page nos.36 to 38 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the representation dated 19.05.2026, as submitted by the petitioner with the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters And Rehabilitation Division, Kartavya Bhawan, New Delhi. 7. Attention of this Court is drawn to page nos.28 to 30 of the instant writ petition being a server copy of the order dated 02.01.2026 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.A. 27495 of 2025 (Md. Mahfuzul Alam & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). 8. It is submitted that from the said order dated 02.01.2026, it would reveal that the said Co-ordinate Bench while disposing the instant writ petition, directed the aforementioned Joint Secretary to 3 consider the representation of the writ petitioner, in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. 9. Placing reliance upon the Supplementary Affidavit as filed today, it is submitted that from page nos.4 and 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit as filed today, it would reveal that the said Joint Secretary of the Government of India is in seisin over the consideration of the representation of the present writ petitioner and the last date of such proceeding was fixed on 10.07.2026, which, however, was postponed due to administrative reason. 10. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that in view of the facts and circumstances, the respondent no.7 authority may be directed not to proceed with the impugned notice and thus, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioner in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition. 11. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 submits before this Court that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court in view of Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 read with Section 2(r) of the said Act of 1997 (“Act of 1997”, in short). 4 12. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that an application complaining ‘inaction’ of an authority under specified Act comes under the purview of the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the said Act of 1997. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya. 14. This Court has meticulously perused the entire materials as placed before this Court. 15. This Court has given its due consideration over the submission of the learned counsel for the contending parties. 16. For effective adjudication of the instant lis, this Court, at the very outset, proposed to look to Section 2(r) of the said Act of 1997, which defines ‘specified Act’. It appears from Section 2(r) of the Act of 1997 that the Act of 1955 comes under the purview of specified Act. 17. At this juncture, this Court also proposes to look to the provision of Section 6 of the Act of 1997, which reads as under:- “6. Jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal.- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall, with effect from such date as may be appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf, exercise jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to- (a) ….. 5 (b) an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an Authority under a specified Act; (c) ….. [(d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any Act under the provisions of a specified Act;] (e) …..” 18. Keeping in mind, the aforementioned legislative provision if I look to the factual aspects, as involved in the instant writ petition, it reveals that the subject- matter of the instant writ petition is a notice dated 17.06.2026, as has been issued by the respondent no.7 authority under the Act of 1955, which is a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the Act of 1997. 19. On perusal of the provision of Section 6(d) of the Act of 1997, it appears that an application relating to matters under any provision of specified Act comes under the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. 20. Since the subject-matter of the instant writ petition is the notice dated 17.06.2026 under Section 57 of the Act of 1955, which is a specified Act under the Act of 1997, in considered view of this Court as per the statutory mandate, such an application shall have to be preferred before the Tribunal as has been constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 1997. 6 21. It thus appears to this Court that the writ petitioner has chosen a wrong forum to ventilate his grievance. 22. With the aforementioned observation, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 23. Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that in the event, the writ petitioner files similar such application impugning the notice dated 17.06.2026 under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 before the appropriate authority within 30 working days from today, the said authority shall not treat such application as time-barred and shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law. 24. It is further made clear that while disposing the instant writ petition, this Court has not gone into the merits of the instant writ petition and since, affidavits have not called for, the allegations made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)