Interim Stay of Appellate Land Order Justified to Prevent Original Application from Becoming Infructuous Subject to Status Quo.

The petitioner originally obtained an order from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.) to correct the records of rights by incorporating his name

This order was subsequently reversed by the Appellate Authority under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, following a challenge by the private respondents, who alleged the petitioner used forged documents

The petitioner then moved the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (O.A. 2048 of 2025) seeking a stay on the Appellate Authority's order; however, the Tribunal refused to grant an ad interim stay

The petitioner challenged this refusal before the High Court at Calcutta via a writ petition, arguing that the lack of a stay would render the original application infructuous

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to grant an ad interim stay of operation of the Appellate Authority's order pending the final disposal of the original application

2. Whether an interim order of stay is necessary to maintain the balance of convenience between the parties

The court applied the "balance of convenience and inconvenience" test and the principle of preventing a proceeding from becoming "infructuous" during the pendency of litigation

It scrutinized the exercise of discretionary power for granting interim orders under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal framework, noting that such orders must reflect a consideration of the materials on record rather than "lip-service" to legal tests

The Court observed that while the Tribunal mentioned the standard tests for interim relief, it failed to actually advert to or analyze the materials relied upon by the parties

The Court reasoned that if the Appellate Authority’s order (which deleted the petitioner's name from records) were allowed to take effect while the main application was still pending, the petitioner's primary challenge would be rendered moot or "infructuous" before a merit-based hearing could occur

To balance this against the rights of the private respondents, who claimed the petitioner's title was based on forgery, the Court determined that a conditional stay was the most equitable solution

This ensures the status of the record is preserved without allowing the petitioner to further alienate or change the nature of the property

The Court granted a stay of the operation of the Appellate Authority’s order (dated May 20, 2025) until the disposal of the original application (O.A. 2048 of 2025) before the Tribunal

This stay is strictly subject to the petitioner maintaining status quo regarding the subject property

The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the forgery allegations, leaving those to be adjudicated by the Tribunal