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 Sandip Kumar De W.P.L.R.T. No. 152 of 2026 The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Deity Sri Sri Lakshmi Jew Thakur and Anr. For the State : Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & AGP, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Atanu Basu, Advs. For the respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. B. P. Mondal, Mr. Sukanta Mondal, Ms. Kakali Ghosh, Advs. Heard on : August 25, 2026. Judgment on : August 25, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. The present writ petition assails an order whereby, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, the learned Tribunal held a fresh proceeding initiated by the B.L. & L.R.O, Kharagpur-II under Sections 14T(5) and 14T(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Act”) to be perverse, bad and untenable in law quashed and set aside the same. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners points out that initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order in CO No. 842(W) of 1995, on December 10, 1996, disposing of the writ petition with the observation that in view of the Division Bench judgment in Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (1996) WBLR 242, the concerned respondents should pass an appropriate order in terms of the said judgment and that if any final order in the aforementioned proceeding had already been passed, the same should stand quashed. 3. Subsequently, the matter came before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal which, by its judgment and order dated June 8, 2007, acting in terms of the order dated December 10, 1996 passed in CO No. 842 (W) of 1995, held that the order passed by the Revenue Officer in Vesting Proceeding no. 32/94 and Debottar Case no. 4/1994 stands quashed. In addition, the learned Tribunal directed the B.L. & 2 L.R.O, Kharagpur-II to comply with the orders of this Court and take all consequential actions within three months. 4. Subsequently (according to the writ petitioners, in terms of the said direction), fresh proceedings were initiated under Sections 14T(5) and (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 5. Learned AGP, appearing for the State/petitioners, submits that by the impugned order, the learned Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction in quashing the fresh proceedings on the ground that those are perverse, bad and untenable in law, thereby misinterpreting the earlier order of this Court as well as the direction of the Tribunal and going beyond the contempt jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the act of initiation of the subsequent proceedings under the aforesaid provisions was itself contumacious, in the teeth of the direction of the Tribunal to comply with the order of this Court. 7. However, from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal referred to above, we only find that the Tribunal directed the B.L. & L.R.O, Kharagpur-II to comply with the orders of the High Court and take “all consequential actions”. 8. The expression “all consequential actions” and the true purport of the order of this Court in the earlier round of litigation are matters of legal interpretation. It is always open to the respondents to challenge the maintainability of the subsequent proceedings, inter alia on the 3 ground that those were in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal and this Court, before the appropriate forum. 9. However, the scope of contempt is limited to whether the order under contempt was deliberately violated or not. It is trite law that in the event any interpretation of law is required in respect of the order under contempt, it cannot be said that there was wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court/Tribunal. Thus, in view of the inbuilt ambiguity in the direction of the Tribunal to the effect that “all consequential actions” were to be taken in terms of the Hon’ble High Court, it was left to the interpretation of the State authorities as to what was such consequential action. 10. The petitioners, on their own interpretation of the said judgment, initiated fresh proceedings under Section 14T (5)and (6) of the 1955 Act. Although it is arguable whether such proceedings are maintainable in law and/or are in strict compliance with the earlier order of this Court, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, to adjudicate on such issues and to hold that the B.L. & L.R.O’s action was per se perverse, bad or untenable in the eye of law and/or to quash the same. 11. Accordingly, WPLRT 152 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated June 23, 2026 passed by the Third Bench, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. 1002 of 2010 (O.A. 635 of 2004)/ LRTT. 4 12. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall preclude the private respondents from challenging the legality and/or maintainability of the fresh proceeding initiated by the B.L. & L.R.O, Kharagpur-II under Section 14T (5) and (6) of the 1955 Act in accordance with law. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD -21 Ct No.16 25.08.2026 (SSS) 5