Calcutta High Court: WBLRTT Cannot Be Bypassed Merely By Alleging Wrongful Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Thika Tenancy Act

Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya dismissed a writ petition filed by Ambe Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. challenging summons issued by the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy, in proceedings concerning premises at Gurusaday Road, Kolkata. The Court held that the WBLRTT, constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution, functions as the court of first instance in matters arising under specified Acts and cannot ordinarily be bypassed merely on allegations that an authority under the 2001 Act has wrongfully assumed jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged a summons issued in a proceeding under Section 5(3) of the 2001 Act. Raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) contended that the 2001 Act is a “specified Act” under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, and that disputes arising thereunder fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WBLRTT.

The petitioners argued that the issue concerning the status of the property had already been adjudicated in civil proceedings, where the plea of thika tenancy was rejected and an eviction decree was passed. They contended that the Deputy Controller lacked inherent jurisdiction to reopen the issue and therefore the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

The Court examined the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the availability of alternative remedies and referred to decisions including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

After analysing the constitutional scheme governing tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, the Court observed that the WBLRTT was specifically created to adjudicate disputes arising from specified enactments, including the 2001 Act. It noted that tribunals established under Article 323B function as courts of first instance and litigants cannot ordinarily bypass them by directly invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court further observed that the question raised by the petitioners was not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact requiring adjudication by the specialised Tribunal. It held that the WBLRTT, comprising Judicial and Administrative Members, is fully equipped to determine such disputes, including questions relating to the jurisdiction of authorities acting under specified Acts.

Holding that the Tribunal should not be bypassed on the ground of an alleged wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by an authority under the 2001 Act, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Case Title: Ambe Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Office of the Controller, Kolkata Thika Tenancy & Ors.

Case No.: WPA 8789 of 2026

Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Krishnaraj Thakar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Mr. Pushan Kar, Mr. Sagnik Majumder & Ms. Shreya Ghosh Dastidar, Advocates

Advocates for Respondent No. 3 (Indian Oil): Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Amit Meharia, Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Sayan Dey & Mr. Yash Mahmia, Advocates (MCO Legals – Meharia & Company)