Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 415 (CAL)

GORACHAND BANDOPADHYAY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/2613/2026 · 2026-02-10

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 19 (265719) 10.02.2026 (AD 13) (S. Banerjee) WPA 2613 of 2026 Gorachand Bandopadhyay & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debanik Banerjee Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty Ms. Sayani Gupta Mr. Atindra Rai Ms. Huzaifa Shahid …for the petitioners Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Ld. AGP Ms. Asima Das Shil …for the State Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for revocation of the mutation of the names of the private-respondents in respect of certain plots of land and for a direction upon the respondent authorities to record the names of the petitioners in respect of the said plots. Mr. Mahata, learned AGP, raises an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition. He submits that there is provision for appeal in the relevant statute against the order. He further submits that in view of the provisions laid down in the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, the writ petition is also not maintainable before this Court. 2 After going through the averments made in the writ petition as well as the representations appended thereto, this Court finds that the petitioners have challenged the action of the authorities in mutating the names of the private-respondents in respect of certain plots of land. The petitioners have in effect have challenged an order passed by an authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which is a specified Act under Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. That apart an appeal lies against the said order before the appellate authority. In view of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under the 1955 and 1997 Acts, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Faced with such situation the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law on the self-same cause of action. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)