A Tribunal application challenging a Revenue Officer’s order is not an appeal, making condonation maintainable.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 24 December 2025 passed by the Second Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in MA No. 1162 of 2024 and MA No. 742 of 2025 arising from OA No. 56 of 2019.

The Tribunal had reviewed its earlier order dated 28 September 2022, in which it held that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the original application was redundant and not maintainable.

The petitioners contended that the review application itself was belated, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable, and that the original order did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

The State supported the review, relying on Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, and submitted that the petitioners had conceded to condonation of delay in filing the review application.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in reviewing its order dated 28 September 2022 on the ground that the order contained an error apparent on the face of the record.

Whether the original application before the Tribunal was an appeal requiring a prescribed period of limitation, or a Tribunal application maintainable under Sections 6 and 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997.

Whether the delay in filing the review application could be reopened before the High Court when the petitioners had conceded to the prayer for condonation before the Tribunal.

Whether the High Court should itself decide the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay in filing the original application.

The Court applied Sections 6 and 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, concerning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over applications within the statutory scheme, and Section 16 of the Act, which permits review before the Tribunal.

It applied the principles analogous to Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which review is permissible where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered in relation to condonation of delay.

The Court also considered the limited scope of review stated in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, and Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927; however, those authorities do not bar review where a patent error is established.

A Tribunal application cannot be treated as an appeal merely because it challenges a concluded order, particularly where no statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal against that order.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s original view incorrectly characterised the petitioners’ proceeding as an appeal.

Since a statutory appeal against the Revenue Officer’s order did not lie before the Tribunal, the original proceeding was an application under Sections 6 and 10 of the 1997 Act and not an appeal governed by a prescribed appellate limitation period.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the Section 5 condonation application was not maintainable was a patent error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review under the applicable Order XLVII principles.

The Court further observed that the proceeding challenged an order of the Revenue Officer and was not founded on mere inaction, but this did not convert it into an appeal where no statutory appellate remedy before the Tribunal existed.

The objection to the delay in filing the review application was rejected because the petitioners had themselves conceded to condonation before the Tribunal.

The High Court declined to decide the original condonation application on merits, as doing so would deprive the parties of a forum of challenge and improperly usurp the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed on contest, and the Tribunal’s order dated 24 December 2025 was affirmed.

The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the condonation application on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from communication of the judgment.

There was no order as to costs.