Challenges to demarcation by authorities under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act lie before the Land Reforms Tribunal.

The petitioners claimed joint ownership of approximately 60 cottah 6 chitak and 28 square feet in LR Plot No. 414, Mouza Madurdaha, South 24-Parganas.

The land had allegedly been requisitioned and was subsequently de-requisitioned by memo dated 19 February 2015, following which possession was stated to have been handed over to the petitioners.

After entering into a development agreement with respondent no. 9, the petitioners were informed that only approximately 20 cottah could be traced in LR Plot No. 414.

They therefore sought physical demarcation from the BL&LRO.

In earlier proceedings, the Special Land Acquisition Officer stated that Plot No. 414 had been partly released from requisition and that demarcation was the responsibility of the jurisdictional BL&LRO.

A Co-ordinate Bench thereafter directed the jurisdictional ADM and DL&LRO, with the assistance of the BL&LRO, to conduct demarcation and submit a report.

The ADM and DL&LRO submitted a demarcation report dated 13 June 2025, which stated, inter alia, that the petitioners’ claimed area extended beyond LR Plot No. 414 and reached a portion of Plot No. 417.

The petitioners challenged that report and sought its quashing along with a fresh demarcation.

Whether the writ petition challenging the demarcation report of the ADM and DL&LRO was maintainable before the High Court, or whether the petitioners were required to approach the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal?

Whether the demarcation report dated 13 June 2025 suffered from any material contradiction, glaring irregularity, or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could determine the disputed questions concerning the petitioners’ title, possession, and the precise location of the claimed land?

The Court applied Section 2(r)(ii) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, under which the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is a specified Act.

Section 6 of the 1997 Act confers jurisdiction upon the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal over complaints concerning inaction or culpable negligence by authorities functioning under a specified Act.

Since the ADM and DL&LRO was an authority under the specified land-reforms legislation, a challenge alleging culpable negligence in preparation of the demarcation report was required to be brought before the Tribunal.

The Court also applied the settled limitation on writ jurisdiction that disputed questions of title, possession, boundaries, and factual measurement ordinarily cannot be adjudicated without evidentiary machinery in proceedings under Article 226.

The Court held that the petitioners’ challenge effectively alleged culpable negligence by the ADM and DL&LRO in preparing the impugned demarcation report.

Consequently, by virtue of Sections 2(r)(ii) and 6 of the 1997 Act, the proper forum was the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

In the alternative, the Court examined the merits and found no inconsistency between the earlier status report and the impugned report, because the Special Land Acquisition Officer had expressly stated that he was not the competent authority to conduct demarcation.

The field verification showed that the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass and adjoining areas occupied a substantial portion of LR Plot No. 414, and that the area pointed out by the petitioners extended beyond Plot No. 414 into Plot No. 417.

Since resolving the competing claims would require determination of title, possession, and boundary-related facts, the Court declined to undertake that exercise in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioners consequently failed to establish any glaring irregularity warranting judicial review.

Independently, the Court found the petition devoid of merit and declined to interfere with the demarcation report, holding that no glaring irregularity or contradiction had been demonstrated and that the disputed factual questions could not be decided in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed, any interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs.