The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge entries in the record of rights based on alleged forgery of sale deeds when an efficacious remedy before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal is available. This decision upholds established precedent and serves as binding authority on the non-maintainability of writ petitions in such circumstances within West Bengal’s land law context.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/18717/2021 of LINA GOLUI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0356292021 |
| Date of Registration | 23-11-2021 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Land Records, Writ Jurisdiction, State Land Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked for mutation disputes when an alternative remedy exists under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal precludes the maintainability of a writ petition seeking to restrain alterations in land records based on alleged forged deeds. The petitioner’s failure to pursue the prescribed remedy before the tribunal warrants non-entertainment and dismissal of the writ petition. The principle of alternative remedy, particularly in specialized statutory forums, limits the invocation of constitutional writ jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer not to alter entries in the record of rights based on a deed of sale alleged to be forged. The matter related to the mutation of land record entries pursuant to a disputed sale. The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction without first approaching the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in cases involving land mutation and alternative statutory remedies |
| Follows | Principle that writ jurisdiction is barred when efficacious alternative remedy exists |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that disputes concerning alteration of land records based on alleged forged deeds must be addressed through the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, not through writ proceedings.
- Clarifies practical importance of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking High Court’s writ jurisdiction in land records mutation disputes.
- Lawyers should advise clients to utilize specialized statutory forums before approaching constitutional courts in similar contexts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the petitioner’s main grievance pertained to the proposed alteration of land record entries based on an allegedly forged sale deed.
- It noted the existence of an “efficacious alternative remedy” before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
- Based on this, the Court exercised judicial self-restraint and declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.
- The petition was accordingly dismissed due to the availability of the statutory alternative remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a writ of mandamus directing the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer not to alter the record of rights on the basis of an allegedly forged sale deed.
Respondent
- (Not specified; no one appeared.)
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court praying for a writ of mandamus to prevent the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer from altering land record entries pursuant to a sale deed dated 10th September, 2021, which was alleged to be forged. The alleged mutation dispute squarely related to changes in the record of rights. The petitioner had not availed of the statutory remedy available before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
Statutory Analysis
The Court emphasized the existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal for disputes concerning land record mutations and related grievances. The judgment highlights judicial restraint in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a specialized tribunal’s jurisdiction exists.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed existing law requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies, upholding settled precedent on writ jurisdiction limitations in the context of land record disputes.