KUMARESH MONDAL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

D/L.5.
September 1, 2026.
MNS
.

WPLRT No. 168 of 2026

Kumaresh Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others


Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Adv.

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Standing Counsel,
Ms. J. D. Chakraborty,
Mr. Suman Banerjee,
Mr. Swapnamay Sarkar, Advs.

…for the State.


1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on
record.
2. Despite service, none appears for the private
respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
4. The present challenge has been preferred against an
order whereby there was deemed refusal of the ad interim
prayer for injunction made by the petitioner before the
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in
connection with an original application.
5. In the original application, the petitioner has
challenged a notice of show cause as to why the patta
granted to the writ petitioner in the year 1989 under
Section 49 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in
short “the 1995 Act”) should not be cancelled.

2
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that
although the Tribunal recorded that no affidavit-of-service
was filed before the Tribunal, an affidavit was actually filed,
although no service had yet been affected.
7. More importantly, it is argued that the Tribunal, under
Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act of 1997”), has ample power, if urgency is made out, to
grant ad interim injunction even in the absence of the
respondents.
8. Secondly, the show cause notice which has been
challenged before the Tribunal is ex facie illegal since it
does not disclose the specific alleged violation by the writ
petitioner, entailing cancellation of the petitioner’s patta .
9. It is submitted that under Section 49 of the 1955 Act,
a patta can be cancelled only if fraud was played in getting
such patta and/or the subject property is transferred,
neither of which is satisfied in the present case.
10. Accordingly, it is argued that the Tribunal ought to
have granted interim orders protecting the petitioner’s
peaceful possession from the private respondents, who
are trying to construct a Durga Puja pandal for the
upcoming Durga Puja festival, as well as stay of all further
proceedings of cancellation of patta .
11. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
State submits that although the Tribunal has power under
Section 10(3) of the Act of 1997 to grant ad interim

3
protection in the absence of the respondent, a case has to
be categorically made out for such purpose.
12. It is not evident from the impugned order that any
prayer for ad interim protection was pressed.
13. Moreover, in the event the Tribunal records that
affidavit-of-service was not filed, it was for the writ
petitioner to approach the Tribunal pointing out that the
said finding was erroneous, if at all.
14. From the pleadings in the original application, we find
that there is ample allegation that the private respondents
are trying to disrupt the peaceful possession of the
petitioner, who is admittedly a patta holder (at least till
such patta is cancelled in due process of law) and that the
private respondents damaged and destroyed several
mango trees, saplings and other plants and seasonal
vegetables cultivated and raised by the petitioner upon the
patta land, causing substantial loss, injury and prejudice to
the petitioner.
15. Furthermore, the illegalities of the impugned notice
and the connected proceedings have also been pleaded in
the original application, thus furnishing the rudimentary
factual framework entitling the petitioner to get ad interim
protection.
16. Even without going into the question as to whether
any affidavit-of-service was filed by the petitioner before
the Tribunal or not and/or actual service was effected on
the respondents before the impugned order was passed,
we find that the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction

4
vested in it by law in not even considering the ad interim
prayer of the petitioner, made in the original application.
17. We are prima facie satisfied that an ad hoc protection
ought to be granted to the petitioner in the light of the
infirmities pointed out in the impugned notice and the
connected proceedings as well as evident from the
averments made against the private respondents in the
original application.
18. However, such protection proposed to be granted by
us would be ad hoc in nature enabling, the Tribunal to
decide on merits the ad interim prayers of the writ
petitioner.
19. Accordingly, WPLRT No. 168 of 2026 is disposed of
by modifying the impugned order dated July 2, 2026
passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy
Tribunal, Fourth Bench, in OA 1362 of 2026 (LRTT) to the
effect that all further proceedings in Case No.
01/Anl/Ise/2026 shall remain stayed for a period of three
weeks from date. The private respondents and/or their
men and agents shall also remain restrained by an order
of injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession to the
petitioner and/or seeking to enter upon the subject
property or alter the nature and character thereof in any
manner, also for a period of three weeks from date.
20. The Tribunal shall, on the basis of a server copy of
this order, coupled with a communication by the learned
Advocate for either party, adjudicate on the ad interim
prayers made by the petitioner in connection with OA 1362

5
of 2026 (LRTT) positively within a fortnight from the date of
communication of this order to the Tribunal.
21. If, by any chance, the aforesaid timeline for
adjudicating on the ad interim prayer cannot be adhered to
for some unforeseen reasons by the Tribunal, it will be
open to the petitioner to seek extension of the interim
order granted by us before the Tribunal, by deeming the
same to have been passed by the Tribunal.
22. However, we amply make it clear that all questions
are left open to be decided independently by the Tribunal
at all stages, including at the ad interim stage and further
subsequent stages of the original application, without
being unduly influenced in any manner by any of the
observations made by us.
23. There will be no order as to costs.
24. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)