Single Bench Jurisdiction Ousted for Matters Falling Under Specified Acts within the Domain of WBLRTT.

The petitioners purchased a property at 16 B, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata, and substituted themselves as plaintiffs in a pending eviction suit against the 3rd respondent.

The suit was decreed in favor of the petitioners, but the 3rd respondent filed an appeal and subsequent execution proceedings, claiming status as a "thika tenant" under the 1981 Act—a plea previously rejected by the Civil Court.

The petitioners challenged a summons dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, in Misc. Case No. 63 of 2025, arguing the Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate thika tenancy status after a Civil Court decree.

The 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before a Single Bench, asserting that the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (WBLRTT) has exclusive primary jurisdiction.

1. Whether an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice issued by an authority under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, is entertainable before a Single Bench of the High Court.

2. Whether the existence of a tribunal constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court to act as a court of first instance.

Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, which vest exclusive jurisdiction in the WBLRTT over matters arising from "specified Acts," including the Thika Tenancy Act.

Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which established that Tribunals created under Articles 323A/323B act as courts of first instance and their decisions are subject to scrutiny only by a Division Bench of the High Court.

State of W.B. v. Ashish Kumar Roy and Ananda Koley v. State of West Bengal to affirm that the High Court’s jurisdiction as a court of first instance is excluded in such matters.

"Rule of alternate remedy" exceptions in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

Since the Thika Tenancy Act of 2001 is a "specified Act" under the 1997 Act, any dispute relating to orders or notices issued thereunder falls squarely within the domain of the WBLRTT.

Although the petitioners argued that the Deputy Controller "wrongfully assumed jurisdiction," the court held that the WBLRTT is fully empowered to adjudicate questions of jurisdiction, vires, and violations of natural justice.

The court distinguished T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, noting that direct recourse to the High Court is permitted only in "extraordinary" or "exceptional" circumstances, which were not present here as the WBLRTT is an effective and robust forum.

Applying the principle of self-imposed restraint, the court determined that the Petitioner's challenge involved mixed questions of law and fact, which must first be filtered through the specialized Tribunal to ensure judicial efficiency as envisioned by the 1997 Act.

The High Court cannot be directly approached by bypassing the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed as not entertained, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the proper forum (WBLRTT). No costs were ordered.