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 WPLRT 191 of 2026 The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Arabinda Ghosh, since deceased, represented by his legal heirs and legal representatives Subrata Ghosh and Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Tapas Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswaranjan Bhakat, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Md. Ali Mansoor, Ms. Anamika Bari, Advs. Heard on : September 29, 2026. Judgment on : September 29, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record. 2. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in the context of an application alleging contempt of its previous direction, directed the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. (the alleged contemnor) to permit the legal heirs of deceased Jogomaya Dasi @ Ghose to submit fresh B-Form for exercising the statutory choice of retention, further observing that upon receipt of such fresh B-Form, the B.L. & L.R.O. shall undertake due enquiry strictly in accordance with law and thereafter, take lawful steps so as to reflect the statutory entitlement of the appellants accruing under Section 6(5) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, and directing that the applicant shall submit fresh B-Form before the said B.L. & L.R.O. within a fortnight from that day. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal acted palpably beyond its jurisdiction while taking up a contempt application by virtually sitting in judgment over the order passed by the alleged contemnor pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel submits that the contempt arose out of a previous direction of the Tribunal directing the alleged contemnor merely to dispose of a representation of the applicants in the original application in accordance with law. It is pointed out that pursuant to the said direction, vide Order no. 11 dated October 17, 2025, a reasoned decision was taken, disposing of the said representation. 2 5. Despite the same, it is pointed out, the learned Tribunal not only kept the contempt application alive but passed directions therein, in effect sitting in judgment over the order passed by the alleged contemnor. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contends that under certain circumstances, the Court or Tribunal, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, can pass further directions to give effect to the order under contempt. 7. In the present case, it is argued that the respondents had run from pillar to post in approaching the alleged contemnor several times, without any effect, for considering their plea that the disputed plots of land had not vested in the State in the first place within the contemplation of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1953 Act, read in conjunction with Section 6 of the said Act. 8. Learned senior counsel argues that in the event a land comes within the ceiling limit as prescribed in Section 6 of the said Act, no question of further retention arises. Even otherwise, it is submitted that other similarly placed persons as the respondents have been permitted to retain their respective portions of adjacent lands, whereas in case of the respondents, repeated pleas were taken that no return filed by them in B Form could be traced out. 9. It is only in such context, it is argued, that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the B.L. & L.R.O. had not disposed of the 3 representation of the respondents in accordance with law and the order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. was a mere empty formality. 10. Upon considering the materials before us and the arguments of counsel, we find that the initial direction passed by the Tribunal, as recorded in the order impugned before us, was that the B.L. & L.R.O., Jagatballavpur, Howrah shall dispose of a representation of the present respondents in accordance with law. 11. Subsequent thereto, vide Order no. 11 dated October 17, 2025, the said representation, which was registered as a proceeding bearing Miscellaneous Case no. 19 of 2023, was disposed of with a reasoned order. We find from the said order that the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. took into consideration certain cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that Section 6 of the 1953 Act, having a non-obstante clause, carves out exceptions to the operation of Sections 4 and 5 and preserves the right of intermediaries to retain possession and title of certain lands in certain circumstances. Therefore, it was held, any land or estate which is not retained vested in the State. On such premise, the B.L. & L.R.O. proceeded to hold that when the subject land was held by the intermediaries in “proprietor” (intermediary) status, and that the matter of holding the same, whether under khas possession or through tenants, on the date of the vesting is an essential factor while determination of retainability of the said land. 12. On a careful perusal of the said order, we find sufficient reasons having been given by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. therein. 4 13. The scope of the initial order of the Tribunal did not touch upon the merits of the representation of the present respondents but merely comprised of a direction on the B.L. & L.R.O. to consider the respondents’ representation in accordance with law. 14. The expression “in accordance with law” is subjective and dependent on the perception of an appellate or a hierarchically superior authority if and when such order is challenged before such authority. If there is any scope of doubt as to whether the order in question was passed in accordance with law or not, the same cannot come within the ambit of contempt. 15. We could still have understood if the B.L. & L.R.O., by a cryptic one-liner, had rejected the representation of the present respondents without entering into the merits of the representation at all. However, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., in his own way, sought to interpret the law and passed a reasoned order, thereby complying with the initial direction of the Tribunal dated January 5, 2021 to the letter and in spirit as well. 16. The question whether such order of the B.L. & L.R.O. is legally sustainable or not can only be the subject matter of a challenge before the appropriate forum as designated in law. 17. However, the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, not only went far beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction, but virtually sat in appeal over the order passed in compliance with his earlier direction, which furnishes at best, a fresh cause of action to the 5 challenger, and issued a categorical direction on the B.L. & L.R.O. to permit the legal heirs of the deceased predecessor of the respondents to submit fresh Form-B as well as to reflect statutory entitlement of the present respondents (applicants before the B.L. & L.R.O.) accruing under Section 6(5) of the 1953 Act outright. Such observations tantamounted to re-adjudicating on the fate of the representation without any challenge being preferred against such adjudication which had already been done by the B.L. & L.R.O. Such exercise on the part of the Tribunal was palpably beyond jurisdiction, particularly the contempt jurisdiction, and, accordingly, cannot be sustained in law. 18. Hence, W.P.L.R.T. No. 191 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated June 9, 2026 passed in MA 855 of 2021 (OA 1466 of 2020) (LRTT) and dismissing the said contempt application, bearing MA 855 of 2021, in view of the same having spent force by virtue of the alleged contemnor having complied with the initial direction dated January 5, 2021 passed by the Tribunal. 19. However, we make it abundantly clear that none of the above findings and/or the outcome of the present writ petition shall, in any manner, preclude any aggrieved party from challenging the order dated October 17, 2025 passed by the B.L. & L.R.O., Jagatballavpur, Howrah, in Miscellaneous Case no. 19 of 2023 before the appropriate forum designated for entertaining such challenges. If such a challenge is preferred, the same shall be decided independently, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 6 20. There will be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD-9 Ct No.16 (SSS) 7