Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ananda Agarwalla vs State Of West Bengal& Ors on 30 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
W.P.A. No. 12307 of 2026
Ananda Agarwalla
Vs.
State of West Bengal& Ors.
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manas Kr. Das
Mr. Amrit Sinha
Mr. Aniruddha Tewari
....For the petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Mishra, Ld. A.G.P.
Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee
....For the State.
Hearing Concluded On : 17.07.2026
Judgment Delivered On : 30.07.2026
Judgment Uploaded On : 30.07.2026
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction
upon the respondent no.4, The District Magistrate, Nadia for issuance
2
of “No Objection Certificate” to the petitioner for establishment and
commissioning of the proposed Retail Outlet Dealership of Indian Oil
Corporation Limited on the basis of the report submitted by the
concern Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, the respondent no.7.
2. The petitioner purchased various plots of land measuring 94 Decimal,
situated at L.R. Dag No. 148, 149 and 155 under L.R. Khatian No.
1993, Mouza- Bholadanga, J.L. No. 74, Police Station- Nakashipara,
District- Nadia from various persons including the respondent no.9.
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “IOCL”)
published an advertisement for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership
at various places in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner made an
application for Regular Open Category Dealership on LHS of NH 34
(new NH 12) between KM Stone 131 to KM Stone 140, while going from
Gachha to Plassey, being serial No. 85 of the advertisement. After
opening of the bids, the petitioner was provisionally selected for
allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership.
3. The petitioner has obtained Trade Registration Certificate for the
purpose of carrying out his business of Petrol Pump. The respondent
no.3 has issued Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner subject to certain
terms and conditions. The petitioner has made an application before
the respondent no.7 for deleting ‘barga’ notation appearing in the name
of respondent no.9 with respect to Dag No. 149. On receipt of the
request of the petitioner, the Revenue Inspector, Muragachha, has
issued notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no.9 to
3
conduct field survey. After inspection by the Revenue Inspector, the
Block Land and Land Reforms Officer wrote a letter to the Additional
District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer for
taking appropriate steps.
4. The Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer has made an
internal communication with the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer
for verification of the documents and to opine whether the case is fit for
initiation of proceeding under Section 20B(5) of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955. The Block Development Officer, Nakashipara,
submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Nadia, regarding issuance
of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. The Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer informed the respondent no.5 that upon verification of
the land, it reveals that the suit land will not be affected by proceeding
under Section 20B(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
5. The petitioner has submitted a representation before the Additional
District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer as well
as to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nakashipara, for
correction of Record-of-Rights pertaining to Plot No.149 by deleting the
erroneous notation of “Bargadar” in the name of the respondent no.9
but till date the request of the petitioner is not considered.
6. Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioner submits that “bargadar” has been defined under Section 2(2)
of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He submits that a person
4
who under the system generally known as adhi, barga or bhag
cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share
of the produce of such land to that person and includes a person who
under the system generally known as kisani or by any other description
cultivates the land of another person on condition of receiving a share
of the produce of such land from that person. He submits that essential
requirement of the aforesaid definition is that a bargadar must cultivate
the land belonging to another person. He submits that once the
bargadar acquires title to the very same land and becomes the raiyat,
the foundational requirement for continuation of his status as a
bragadar ceases to exist.
7. Mr. Tewari submits that upon such acquisition, he no longer cultivates
the land of another person but cultivate his own land as owner. Upon
acquisition of ownership rights by the bargadar, the limited right of
cultivation as a bargadar merges into the superior right of a raiyat. He
submits that where a lesser right and higher right become vested in the
same person in respect of the same property, the lesser right stands
absorbed into and extinguished by the higher right. The two rights
being mutually inconsistent cannot co-exist simultaneously in respect
of same parcel of land.
8. Mr. Tewari submits that a person cannot continue to hold the status of
both raiyat and bargadar in respect of same land at the same time.
Once the bargadar acquires ownership and assumes the status of a
raiyat, his earlier right as bargadar automatically comes to an end by
5
operation of law and consequently, continuation of the name of the
bargadar in the Record-of-Rights is merely erroneous and the entry
does not create, preserve or revive a right that has already
extinguished.
9. Mr. Tewari submits that the petitioner has completed all formalities
required for commissioning of the Retail Outlet but the only issue
which remains unsolved is the issuance of the “No Objection
Certificate” by the District Magistrate, Nadia.
10. Mr. Tewari has relied upon the judgment in the case of Subrata Kar
vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others reported in 2018
SCC OnLine Cal 11782 and submits that the right to cultivate land by
bargadar is lesser right than the right of raiyat and the moment such
right merged with the right of a riayat it ipso facto extinguishes the
right of a bargadar and the nature of the property remained as riayatee
hold land without any existence of barga therein.
11. Mr. Ajit Mishra, Learned A.G.P., representing the respondents submits
that the dispute in the present writ petition relates to land reforms that
is, namely, correctness of the bragadar entry in the Record-of-Rights
and consequences flowing under Sections 14Y and 20B of the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “WBLR Act,
1955“). He submits that under Section 6 of the West Bengal Land
Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, the petitioner ought to have
6
approached the Tribunal for the reliefs sought for in the present writ
petition, thus the writ petition is not maintainable.
12. Mr. Mishra submits that Section 14Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 is a
statutory exception which enables a person to acquire and hold/retain
land in excess of the ceiling area only upon obtaining previous
permission in writing from the State Government and only for the
purposes specifically enumerated in the first proviso. He submits that
the said proviso exhaustively specifies the categories of projects/
purposes for which such permission may be granted. He submits that
the establishment and operation of a Retail Outlet/ Petrol Pump
dealership does not figure anywhere in the said enumeration. He
submits that the Additional Director of Land Records and Survey and
Joint Land Reforms Commissioner clarified that the proviso of Section
14Y of the WBLR Act, 1955, does not include the purpose of a Petrol
Pump.
13. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the
materials of record and the judgments relied by the petitioner. The
petitioner purchased the landed properties by way of registered sale
deeds from different persons including the private respondent. The
petitioner has offered plots of land in Dag No. 148, 149 and 155 to the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited for the purpose of establishment of
Retail Outlet/ Petrol Pump Dealership.
7
14. During inspection of the properties offered by the petitioner for Retail
Outlet Dealership, it was found that an area of 37 decimal of land in
Dag No. 149 is recorded as ‘barga’ in the name of ‘Sanjib Kumar
Sarkar’, the private respondent no.9 herein. The respondent no. 9 had
purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed from one
Gaurgopal Biswas being Sale Deed No. 620/83. At the time of execution
of Sale Deed by the respondent no.9 in favour of the petitioner dated
2nd February, 2012 being Sale Deed No. 1263 of 2012, it is specifically
mentioned that:
“It is hereby declared that I have no further
objection/claim to the Barga Record in respect of
the 15 decimal of this land sold by me and the total
37 Decimal of the land purchased by you. In this
regard, being of sound mind, willingly, knowingly,
and without any coercion or influence from others, I
have fully understood the terms of this contract
and execute this document in the presence of
witness on this, the 17th day of Magh in the Bengali
year 1418, corresponding to 01/02/2012.”
15. The petitioner has made an application before the respondent no.7 for
deleting the recording ‘barga’ at Dag No. 149 on 29th September, 2023,
informing that the petitioner is in occupation of the land since 2012
and neither himself nor any person is not doing any cultivation in the
said land. As no action has been taken by the authorities, the petitioner
has again made a representation on 29th July, 2024 to the respondent
no. 7 for removal of recording of ‘barga’ as the petitioner has offered the
said land to the Indian Oil Corporation for setting up of Retail Outlet/
Petrol Pump Dealership.
8
16. Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the WBLR Act, 1955, defines “bargadar”
which reads as follows:
“2.(2) “bargadar” means a person who under
the system generally known as adhi barga, or bhag
cultivates the land of another persons on condition
of delivering a share of the produce of such land to
that person [and includes a person who under the
system generally known as kisani (or by any other
description) cultivates the land of another person
on condition of receiving a share of the produce of
such land from that person;]”
17. The petitioner has made an application to the respondent no.7
informing that the petitioner has purchased the land by way of sale
deed from the respondent no.9 and the land is recorded in the name of
the petitioner but in the remark column of the Record-of-Rights, the
name of the respondent no.9 is recorded as ‘bargadar’. The petitioner
requested for deleting the noting ‘barga’ from the remarks column. On
receipt of the application of the petitioner, notices were served to the
petitioner and the respondent no.9, and field enquiry was conducted.
On field enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is in occupation of the
land since 2012 and there is no cultivation going on over the said land
since long. After verification of record, the respondent no.7 submitted
report to the respondent no.5 stating that the land will not be affected
the proceeding under Section 20B (5) of the WBLR Act, 1955.
18. Section 20B of the WBLR Act, 1955, reads as follows:
“20B. Surrender or abandonment by bargadar.
(1) If a bargadar-
9
(a) Surrenders his right to cultivate in relation to
any land cultivated by him as a bargadar, or
(b) Voluntarily abandons cultivation of such
land.
[the owner of the land or the bargadar or any other
person] may give information in writing of such
surrender or abandonment to the officer or
authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section
18, having jurisdiction in the area in which such
land is situated.
(2) On receipt of such information [or on his
own motion], such officer or authority shall issue a
notice in the prescribed form, to the bargadar, and
after giving the bargadar and the person whose
land was cultivated by the bargadar, an
opportunity of being heard and making such
inquiries as he or it may deem necessary,
determine whether the bargadar had voluntarily
surrendered or abandoned his right of cultivation in
relation to such land.
(3) If such officer or authority determines that
the bargadar had not voluntarily surrendered or
abandoned the cultivation of the land which was
being cultivated by him as such and that he had
been compelled by force or otherwise to surrender
or abandon the cultivation of such land, such
officer or authority shall restore the bargadar to the
cultivation of the land, or where the bargadar is not
available or is not willing to be restored to the
cultivation of such land, the person whose land
was so cultivated shall not resume personal
cultivation of the land but he may with the
permission of such officer or authority, get the land
cultivated by any person, referred to in section 49,
who is willing to cultivate the land as a bargadar.
(4) If such officer or authority determines that
the bargadar had voluntarily surrendered or
abandoned the cultivation of the land which was
cultivate by him as such, the person whose land
was being so cultivated shall not resume personal
cultivation of such land but he may, with the
permission of such officer or authority, have the
land cultivated by any person, referred to in section
10
49, who is willing to cultivate the land as a
bargadar.
(5) any contravention of the provisions of sub-
section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six moths, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
[Provided that subject to the payment of
compensation by a transferee to a bargadar under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894), and
the rules made thereunder, nothing in this sub-
section shall apply to any land intended to be
utilized for any of the purposes referred to in the
first proviso to section 14Y.]”
19. Mr. Mishra has relied upon Section 14Y of the WBLR Act, 1955. As per
Section 14Y, if the total area owned by riayat exceeds celling area
applicable to him under Section 14M, on account of transfer,
inheritance or otherwise, the area of land which is in excess of the
celling area shall vest in the State and all the provisions of Chapter IIB
relating to celling area shall apply to such land. This Court is not
satisfied with the argument of Mr. Mishra. The issue in the present
case is whether after purchase of the land by the petitioner from the
respondent no.9 by way of registered sale deed in the year 2012 and
mutation has also been carried out in the name of the petitioner despite
of the same whether noting the name of respondent no.9 in the remark
column of the Record-of-Rights, the name of the respondent no.9 is
noted at “Bargadar” is correct or not and whether without deleting the
name of name of private respondent as bargadar from remark column
of Record-of-Rights, No Objection Certificate can be provided to the
11
petitioner for operating Retail Outlet/ Petrol Pump Dealership in the
said land.
20. In the Sale Deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent
no.9, there is a recital that the respondent no.9 has no objection or no
further claim to the barga record in respect of 15 decimal of the land
sold by him to the petitioner and total land purchased by the petitioner
is 37 decimal.
21. On receipt of the application, field enquiry was conducted. After field
enquiry and verification of the record, the respondent no.7 submitted
report to the respondent no.5 wherein it is recorded that “on verification
of the land it reveals that the suit land will not affected the proceeding
under Section 20B (5) of the WBLR Act, 1955.”
22. From the report submitted by the respondent no.7, it is clear that land
will not be affected the proceeding under Section 20B(5) of the WBLR
Act, 1955. If the authorities have come to the said conclusion, the
authorities ought to have issued No Objection Certificate to the
petitioner for setting up Retail Outlet/ Petrol Pump Dealership but the
authorities have not issued such certificate.
23. The ‘bargadar’ has been defined under Section 2(2) of WBLR Act, 1955
to mean a person who under the system generally known as adhi,
barga or bhag cultivates the land of another person on condition of
delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person, and
includes a person who under the system generally known as kisani, or
12
by any other description, cultivates the land of another person on
condition of receiving a share of the produce of such land from that
person. The explanation clause provides that a bargadar shall continue
to be a bargadar until cultivation by him is lawfully terminated under
this Act.
24. The respondent no. 9 in the sale deed mentioned that he has no claim
or objection with respect to barga record. In the case of Subrata Kar
(supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that :
“19. There is a fallacy in the aforesaid
submission. The first and foremost thing the Court
is required to indicate that mere entry in the Record
of Right neither extinguished nor created title in
favour of the person whose name was erroneously
recorded therein. The expression “clear ownership
title” cannot be stretched to include the entry made
in the Record of Right to be a determinant factor
but should be based upon the valid documents
effecting the transfer of property. In addition to the
same, this Court would like to highlight the position
of law relating to a bargadar under the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘said Act’).
24. It is a trite law that the right to cultivate
land by bargadar is lesser right than the right of
raiyat and the moment such right merged with the
right of a raiyat it ipso facto extinguishes the right
of a bargadar and the nature of the property
remained as raiyatee hold land without any
existence of barga therein. The moment the
purchase was made in the year 1967 by the
bargadars in favour of their respective wives, the
right to cultivate land as bargadar extinguished
and subsequent purchase by the father of the
petitioner in the year 1974 did not bring any
change in such position.
13
25. In view of the above, there is no hesitation
in my mind that the petitioner satisfies the clause
pertaining to the ownership in the land as the right
of bargadar was not subsisting as on such date
and mere erroneous recording in the Record of
Right cannot act as a deterrent to the applicant and
operate prejudicially to his interest.”
25. In view of the above, the respondent no.4 is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner along with the report of the respondent
no.7 and if required, necessary notice be issued to the respondent no.9
and to the petitioner for their opportunity of hearing and to pass
necessary order for grant of “No Objection” and for deletion of recording
the name of private respondent no.9 in the Remark Column of Record-
of-Rights of the landed property as “Bargardar” within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
26. WPA No. 12307 of 2026 is disposed of.
Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the
Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
