Clarifying that an appeal against a prior produce-share direction does not suspend record correction for a bargadar’s termination, the Calcutta High Court upholds finality of termination orders under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955—binding authority for land-records authorities and tribunals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPLRT/108/2025 of SUKUMAR PATHAK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0330672025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar (concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar |
| Type of Law | Statutory (West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955) – Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a termination order under Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 becomes final if no specific appeal against that order is filed, and whether the records‐of‐rights must be corrected immediately thereafter. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the only pending appeal was against an earlier produce‐share order, not against the Section 18 termination. In the absence of any appeal against the termination order, it attained finality. Consequently, the B.L.&L.R.O. was duty‐bound to correct the records‐of‐rights by removing the private respondent’s name and, if applicable, inserting the current bargadar’s name. The Tribunal’s refusal—based on the erroneous premise of a pending appeal—was perverse and set aside. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Examination of certified appeal records showed no challenge to the termination order; hence the order was final, and corrective directions followed as a logical corollary. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The owner obtained an order directing the bargadar to pay his share of produce. An appeal and an original application were filed. Meanwhile, the bargadarship was terminated under Section 18 for non-payment. Conflicting orders by the appellate authority and the Land Reforms Tribunal on pendency led to this writ. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | The concerned B.L.&L.R.O. (Dubrajpur) to correct records immediately upon a final termination. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Termination under Section 18 attains finality unless a specific appeal against that termination is filed.
- An appeal against an antecedent produce‐share direction does not suspend or render infructuous the correction of records following termination.
- Land records authorities must correct entries as a corollary of a final termination order—even if a separate petition against an earlier order remains pending.
- A Tribunal’s dismissal based on a mistaken belief of pendency can be quashed as perverse.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Identification of Pending Appeal: The Court reviewed certified copies of appeal orders and found that appeal No. 366/2019 challenged only the original produce‐share direction, not the termination under Section 18.
- Finality of Termination Order: In the absence of any appeal against the Section 18 termination, the order attained finality by operation of law.
- Mandatory Record Correction: Since termination is definitive, the B.L.&L.R.O. must correct the Records of Rights by removing the private respondent’s name and inserting the current bargadar’s name.
- Perverse Tribunal Order: The Land Reforms Tribunal’s refusal—based on the incorrect premise of a pending termination-order appeal—was held perverse and set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Tribunal erred by assuming an appeal against the termination order was pending.
- The termination order is final; therefore, records must be corrected.
Respondent No. 5
- Claimed an appeal against the termination order was pending (no appeal number disclosed).
- In fact, the only appeal was against the earlier produce-share direction, not the termination.
Factual Background
- The owner obtained a direction that the bargadar pay his share of produce in respect of disputed land.
- An appeal (No. 366/2019) and an original application before the Land Reforms Tribunal challenged that direction.
- During pendency, the bargadarship was terminated under Section 18 for non-payment of produce share.
- The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as infructuous, noting the termination.
- The Tribunal dismissed the owner’s application for record correction, wrongly recording that an appeal against the termination was pending.
Statutory Analysis
-
Section 18, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
- Empowers termination of a bargadarship for non-compliance with produce-share directions.
- A termination order, in the absence of a specific appeal, is final and mandates record correction.