Tribunal exclusivity bars Single Bench writ review of orders under the specified tenancy law despite natural justice objections

Orders passed under the West Bengal Tikha Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 fall within the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal under the governing tribunal statute. Where Sections 7 and 8 of that statute exclude Single Bench writ jurisdiction, a writ petition under Article 226 challenging such an order is not maintainable before a Single Bench, even if violation of natural justice is alleged. The ordinary principle that natural justice may justify writ intervention despite an alternate remedy does not override an express statutory bar when the dispute lies within the Tribunal's domain.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Single Bench of the High Court could entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Tikha Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 when the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction over such matters and the statute excluded the Single Bench writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed orders passed by an authority under a specified Act within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. The Tikha Tenancy Act, 2001 was treated as a specified Act, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction extended to orders made under it. The judgment distinguished the general rule that violation of natural justice may justify writ intervention despite alternate remedy, holding that such principle could not override the express bar created by Sections 7 and 8 of the Tribunal Act where the matter lay within the Tribunal's domain. The cited authorities on natural justice and alternate remedy were held not to assist the petitioners because the Single Bench lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge in the face of the statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Single Bench and the challenge to the impugned order could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special tribunal is vested with jurisdiction over orders passed under a specified Act and the statute excludes Single Bench writ jurisdiction, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable before a Single Bench notwithstanding an allegation of violation of natural justice.

---