Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21389
Decided on: 13.03.2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Partha Sil, AOR, Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Sardar, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv., Mrs. Tania Tamanna, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
***
Mutation -- Civil Court -- Rights of parties to be ultimately decided by Civil Court, whose decision would bind revenue authorities.
***
Mutation -- Civil Court -- Civil Court would ultimately decide rights of parties in relation to subject property -- Decision of Civil Court binding upon revenue authorities -- Parties directed not to continue to agitate their respective claims in relation to mutation -- Authorities concerned directed to maintain status quo insofar as existing mutation entries are concerned, without prejudice, and await decision of Civil Court in pending suit.
(Paras 5 to 9)
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. We are of the opinion that this appeal is amenable to disposal at the admission stage as both the contesting parties are duly represented by learned counsel/learned senior counsel and are agreeable to such disposal.
3. We find that the High Court at Calcutta lost sight of certain facts while attempting to dispose of the matter in its entirety, vide the judgment and final order dated 26.08.2025 passed in W.P.L.R.T. No. 128/2025. We may also note that the issue brought before the High Court was only the refusal to grant interim relief by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal1 [1For short “WBLRTT”], Kolkata, pending consideration of the appeal filed by respondent No. 6, Gita Mondal.
4. It appears that the High Court was not apprised of the fact that Panchanan Mondal sold 6 bighas 18 cottahs of land in R.S. Plot No. 324, vide registered sale dated 01.10.2013 to the appellants’ predecessor-in-title, pursuant to the decree dated 04.06.2013 passed in the preemption suit filed by Panchanan Mondal.
5. We are informed that Title Suit No. 455/2022 filed by respondent No. 6, Gita Mondal, for declaration of her title and for partition is pending consideration before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur. Significantly, she also assailed the pre-emption decree therein on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and suppression and was not acted upon.
6. We may note that the WBLRTT is only seized of the appeal in relation to mutation proceedings and it is the Civil Court which would ultimately decide the rights of the parties in relation to the subject property. Needless to state, the decision of the Civil Court would be binding upon the revenue authorities concerned insofar as mutation entries are concerned. It would, therefore, be appropriate that pending the decision of the Civil Court, the parties do not continue to agitate their respective claims in relation to mutation which, in any event, would not secure them any substantial relief.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed directing the authorities concerned to maintain status quo insofar as the existing mutation entries are concerned, without prejudice, and await the decision of the civil court in the pending suit of the year 2022.
8. The trial court shall decide the issues that arise in the suit expeditiously on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made either by the High Court in the impugned order or by this Court in the present order.
9. In light of this order, the appeal before the WBLRTT shall stand disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********