IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: The Hon’ble Justice Rishad Medora WPA 24563 of 2025 Sunil Jaiswal vs. Thika Tenancy Department, Howrah and Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Advocate Ms. Sanchita Chaudhuri, Advocate Mr. Adnan Lodi, Advocate For the State : Ms. Aparna Banerjee, AGP Mr. Sailendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Krishnayan Ghosh, Advocate Heard on : September 17, 2026 Judgment on: September 17, 2026 RISHAD MEDORA, J.:- 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for, inter alia, a writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel and/or rescind and/or set aside the order dated July 19, 2024 passed by the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah, being the respondent no. 3. 2. There is a history to this writ petition. The petitioner had earlier filed WPA No. 12970 of 2023 before this Court praying for an adjudication of the petitioner’s application under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Thika Act”). It was pending adjudication before the Thika Controller, Howrah since February 10, 2023. By an order dated September 6, 2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah to allot a number to the petitioner’s aforesaid application under Section 5(3) of the said Thika Act and to dispose of the said application expeditiously in accordance with law, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the petitioner. The aforesaid order further recorded that it was expected that such adjudication would be completed within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of communication of such order to the Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated September 6, 2023, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was numbered as Case No. 02/B/2023. The said application was thereafter taken up for hearing from time to time on diverse dates from October 31, 2023 onwards. It appears from the order sheet in connection with the aforesaid application that the matter was fixed for hearing on various dates, including 30.11.2023, 18.01.2024, 08.02.2024 and 07.03.2024. However, on all the aforesaid dates, the learned advocate representing the petitioner before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah sought adjournments for the purposes of producing relevant documents in support of his case, including a registered deed of lease dated June 25, 1973. When the matter was fixed for hearing on May 17, 2024 before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah, the petitioner’s advocate again 2 prayed for an adjournment and the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah noted that the willingness of the petitioner in having his application disposed of was questionable but nonetheless allowed his prayer for an adjournment as a last opportunity, and fixed the next date of hearing on July 19, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. and it was recorded in the aforesaid order dated May 17, 2024 that the said proceeding would be completed on July 19, 2024. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, it appears that the petitioner was neither present nor represented when the matter was taken up for hearing on such date. In such circumstances, the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order by which the aforesaid application of the petitioner was dismissed. The impugned order records that it was contended by the petitioner in his aforesaid application that he was the owner of the property within building no. 1/10, 1/12, 1/16 and 1/18 presently by way of amalgamation numbered as 1/12, Belilious Road together with the property within holding number 2, Belilious Road, corresponding R.S. Dag No. 61, 63, 64 and 71 under R.S. Khatian No. 44, Municipal Sheet No. 27 and R.S. Dag No. 62 and 68 under R.S. Khatian No. 41, Municipal Sheet No. 27 of Mouza Bantra, Police Station – Bantra, District – Howrah measuring an area of about 1 bigha 4 cottahs with pucca structure (“the said property”). 5. The impugned order further records that the petitioner was unable to provide a copy of the aforesaid registered deed of lease dated June 25, 1973 either in the aforesaid application or at the point of time of various hearings 3 before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah. The impugned order also records that the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah, on examination of relevant records and registers of its office, found that the said property / lands were thika-tenanted lands of Mouza – Bantra, J.L. No. 01, Sheet No. 27, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah. Accordingly, the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah came to the conclusion that the said property, being the subject matter of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner before it were thika-tenanted lands and since the petitioner had failed to produce any document or any corroborative evidence in support of his claim, the prayers in his application could not be entertained and his application was thus rejected. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, contends that on July 19, 2024, the petitioner was represented before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah at the time of hearing and the matter was adjourned for further hearing to July 24, 2024. In support of his contention that the matter was adjourned on July 19, 2024 and fixed for hearing thereafter on July 24, 2024, learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the entries made in the diary maintained by the learned advocate representing the petitioner before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah and photocopies of the relevant pages of the said diary have been annexed to the writ petition. 7. It is further submitted that, on July 24, 2024, at the time of hearing before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah, there was a heated argument 4 between the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah and the learned advocate representing the petitioner. According to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was not taken up for hearing thereafter and copies of the orders passed in the aforesaid application on July 19, 2024 or July 24, 2024 were not served on the petitioner or the petitioner’s advocate. 8. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner also draws the attention of this court to a written representation dated July 25, 2024 addressed by the learned advocate representing the petitioner before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah to the President/Secretary, Howrah Bar Association, Howrah in respect of the events which took place before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah on July 24, 2024 and further submits that the same was also brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Howrah by a letter dated July 26, 2024. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that in the middle of July 2025, he came to learn that an order had been passed in the aforesaid application filed by him before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah. He thereafter obtained a certified copy of the entire order sheet and was shocked to discover that his application had been rejected by the impugned order dated July 19, 2024. He also submits that the order sheet does not reflect any hearing having taken place on July 24, 2024. Being aggrieved by the manner in which the said application was dealt with by the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah 5 and being aggrieved by the order dated July 19, 2024, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the matter may be remanded to the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah for a fresh consideration. 11. Learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that the hearing was concluded on July 19, 2024 and no hearing took place on July 24, 2024. Consequently, the question of remand does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal in terms of the provisions of the said Thika Act. Learned counsel for the respondents also acknowledges that the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah had received a letter dated August 19, 2025 from the petitioner requesting him to recall the aforesaid order dated July 19, 2024. She points out that the letter was written more than a year after the aforesaid order dated July 19, 2024 was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ should be dismissed. 12. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and considered the materials on record. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition as well as the arguments made by the Learned Advocates for the parties that there are disputed question of fact involved in the matter. It is also difficult for this court to believe that the petitioner waited for more than a year before approaching this court by filing the present writ petition. It does not appear from the records that the petitioner made any endeavour to make any enquiry before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah for more than a year 6 with regard to the procedure and progress of his case, if he was under the impression that the matter was still pending adjudication before the Deputy Controller, Thika Tenancy, Howrah. The petitioner did not also approach this court alleging violation of the aforesaid order dated September 6, 2023 passed by this court in WPA 12970 of 2023. 13. The order sheet in the aforesaid Case No. 02/B/2023 speaks for itself. The same clearly records that the aforesaid Case No. 02/B/2023 was dismissed on July 19, 2024. The order sheet does not make any mention of the matter having been listed or heard on July 24, 2024. The impugned order is a well- reasoned order. It is trite law that disputes of a factual nature are not to be gone into a writ proceeding. The writ court is generally not concerned with the merits of a decision but is only concerned with the decision-making process. In the present case, no illegality or impropriety in the decision-making process has been demonstrated by the petitioner. 14. In any event, the petitioner had a remedy under Section 12 of the said Thika Act by filing an appeal against the impugned order. However, such remedy has not been availed by the petitioner. In my view, there has been no infraction of law or any statute insofar as the impugned order is concerned. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail any other remedy, if available, including filing of an appeal, insofar as the impugned order is concerned, in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if permissible and in accordance with law. In the event 7 the petitioner institutes any other proceeding against the impugned order, the observations made in this order will not be considered to be binding in such proceeding. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 18.All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment and order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Rishad Medora, J.) 8