ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State took two points of demurer regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. The first is that the petitioners were out of possession as on or soon after 1st February, 2000 in respect of 5.86 acres of land out of 11.44 acres of land that Bhagyalakshmi Cotton Mills was holding as lessee. He referred to paragraph 20 of WP 13495(W) of 2005 and submitted, that was the position on facts. When the petitioners went to the Tribunal challenging the order of 1st February, 2000 they omitted to obtain the relief of being put in possession. This, if arose by omission to seek such relief then, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribing the procedure applicable to writ petitions being heard by this Court, the said claim is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code. He relied on Rule 53 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to applications under 226 of the Constitution of India which is reproduced below:- "53. Save and except as provided by these Rules and subject thereto, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings under Article 226 and nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of this Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
(2.) His second point is that the petitioners are before this Court complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an authority under a specified Act. The specified Act in this case is the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 as the order dated 1st February, 2000, of resumption, was made under the said Act. The inaction or culpable negligence is in the matter of restoring possession to the petitioners. Under the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, the petitioners must necessarily approach the Tribunal for it to exercise jurisdiction, power and authority with regard to such claim of the petitioners. A single Judge of this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot, therefore, deal with this claim of the petitioners at the first instance. Mr. Dutta submitted further, his demurer points be decided first. He invited this Court to deliver judgment on these two points.
(3.) Mr. Panda, learned senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the two writ petitions. He submitted, land comprising of approximately 5.86 acres out of 11.44 acres was held by Bhagyalakshmi Cotton Mills, as lessee. Regarding the said 5.86 acres of land there was no order for retention. It follows that there could be an order of resumption. The State had purported to issue the said order dated 1st February, 2000, of resumption in respect of 5.86 acres of land, under a specified Act being the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. His clients ultimately approached the Tribunal.;