Tribunal Cannot Annul Pattas on Merits; Jurisdiction Lies with the Revenue Officer Under Section 49(2).

The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in OA 3064 of 2022 (LRTT), annulled a patta granted in favour of the petitioners after examining the merits and holding that the subject plot was retained land of the private respondents.

The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s decision, contending that Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 designated the Revenue Officer as the statutory authority for annulment of pattas and that the private respondents’ application was also delayed.

The State submitted that the private respondents had approached the Tribunal only to complain of the Revenue Officer’s inaction on their application for annulment, rather than directly challenging the patta.

Whether the Tribunal could itself adjudicate on the merits and annul the patta when Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 designated the Revenue Officer as the authority competent to annul pattas.

Whether the question of limitation was required to be decided where the proceedings before the Tribunal complained of inaction by the Revenue Officer rather than directly challenging the patta.

Whether the matter was required to be remanded to the competent Revenue Officer for adjudication on merits.

Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 specifically empowers the Revenue Officer to annul a patta, either suo motu or on an application made for that purpose.

Where a statutory authority fails to act on an application within its jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may approach the Tribunal to complain of such inaction; however, the Tribunal cannot usurp the statutory authority’s original jurisdiction and conclusively decide the merits itself.

Such usurpation deprives the parties of the statutory appellate forum and the subsequent remedy before the Tribunal.

A proceeding complaining of inaction is not strictly governed by the sixty-day limitation applicable to a direct challenge to an order.

The Court accepted that the private respondents had approached the Tribunal on the ground that the BL & LRO had failed to dispose of their application for annulment, and therefore the Tribunal was approached against inaction rather than as the original forum for annulment of the patta.

Nevertheless, although the Tribunal could address the alleged inaction, it exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the entire dispute on merits and annulling the patta itself.

Section 49(2) required the substantive application for annulment to be adjudicated initially by the Revenue Officer.

The Tribunal’s assumption of that jurisdiction improperly eliminated both the statutory appellate remedy and the later Tribunal remedy.

Since the proceedings concerned inaction, the Court found it unnecessary to decide limitation and expressly left maintainability and limitation open for determination by the competent authority.

The Tribunal’s judgment dated 5 February 2026 in OA 3064 of 2022 (LRTT) was set aside, and the private respondents’ application for annulment of the patta was remanded to the BL & LRO, Namkhana, for comprehensive adjudication on merits in accordance with law after hearing all interested parties, including the private respondents, the writ petitioners and the State.

The BL & LRO was directed to conclude the exercise preferably within four months from communication of the order.

The authority was directed not to be influenced by observations made by the High Court or the Tribunal, and the Court clarified that it had not decided the merits, maintainability or limitation.

No order was made as to costs.