The Calcutta High Court holds that a Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, cannot dismiss an original application on merits solely due to the absence of the applicant, affirming that such powers must be exercised consistent with Order XLI Rule 17 CPC and prevailing Supreme Court precedent. This judgment follows established law and is binding authority for similar proceedings before the Tribunal and subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPLRT/36/2025 of BIMAL SHASMAL AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0098302025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & Justice Uday Kumar |
| Precedent Value | Binding on West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (2024(1) ICC 631 – Benny D’souza and others Vs. Melwin D’souza and others) |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Tribunal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Tribunal can dismiss an original application on merits for absence of the applicant. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Section 16(e) of the 1997 Act vests the Tribunal with powers similar to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissals in default or ex parte. The application of Order XLI Rule 17 CPC prohibits dismissal of appeals on merits in the absence of the appellant, a principle extended to original applications in the Tribunal. Dismissal on merits due only to non-appearance is an error of jurisdiction. The impugned Tribunal order was thus set aside and the matter remanded for a hearing on merits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | 2024(1) ICC 631 (Benny D’souza and others Vs. Melwin D’souza and others) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Orders under the Tribunal Act to be consistent with CPC principles, particularly regarding default of appearance; appeals/petitions cannot be dismissed on merits for absence alone. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ original application on merit, solely due to their absence. Petitioners contended that such dismissal contravened the CPC as applied by Section 16(e) of the 1997 Act. Court agreed, finding the dismissal ultra vires. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal; all subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other tribunals and High Courts dealing with similar statutory frameworks |
| Follows | 2024(1) ICC 631 (Benny D’souza and others Vs. Melwin D’souza and others) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the Tribunal cannot dismiss an original application on merits solely for absence of the applicant; such dismissal must comply with Order XLI Rule 17 CPC.
- Reinforces the application of Section 16(e) of the 1997 Act to all proceedings before the Tribunal as regards powers akin to those of a civil court under the CPC.
- Lawyers appearing before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal should cite this judgment if faced with merit dismissals for non-appearance.
- Tribunal orders that run contrary to this principle are liable to be set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Calcutta High Court considered whether the Tribunal could dismiss an original application on merits due to the absence of the applicant, examining Section 16(e) of the 1997 Act.
- Section 16(e) grants the Tribunal powers comparable to a civil court under the CPC, specifically in dismissing applications for default or deciding them ex parte.
- The court applied Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, which prohibits dismissal of appeals on merits for absence of the appellant—a principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Benny D’souza (2024(1) ICC 631).
- The Division Bench extended this logic to original applications before the Tribunal, noting that challenges before it share characteristics of appeals.
- The High Court concluded the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the application on merits merely for non-appearance.
- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for proper adjudication after hearing both parties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that under Section 16(e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, the principles of Order XLI Rule 17 CPC apply to original applications.
- Argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the application on merits due to the absence of the petitioners.
Factual Background
The petitioners’ original application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal’s Second Bench solely due to their non-appearance. The petitioners contended before the High Court that such dismissal contravened Section 16(e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, and the applicable CPC provisions.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed Section 16(e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, which endows the Tribunal with powers equivalent to a civil court under the CPC regarding dismissals in default or ex parte matters.
- Order XLI Rule 17 CPC was interpreted to mean that in the appellant’s absence, an appeal (or like application) cannot be dismissed on merits but only for default.
- The High Court affirmed that these procedural safeguards equally apply to original applications before the Tribunal under the 1997 Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedent (Benny D’souza).