Revenue authorities are bound by final civil court decrees and cannot ignore them while correcting record-of-rights.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 12. 3. 01 passed in Transferred Application No. 263 of 2000. While assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tribunal has ignored the judgments and decrees passed by Civil Courts which have become final. In support of such contention the learned counsel for the petitioner first relied on a judgment dated 5. 2. 66 passed by the learned Munsif, additional Court, Contai, in Title Suit No. 57 of 1963. The said suit was decreed in part on contest and the title of the plaintiff in the suit property described in schedule 'ka' to the plaint excepting plot 1783 of Mouza Patna appertaining to khatian No. 404 was declared, and it was made clear that the said property cannot vest. The decree was also passed to the above effect. Against the said judgment and decree the State preferred an appeal. The said appeal was numbered as Title Appeal No. 181 of 1966. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Midnapore. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no second appeal was filed and in support of such contention, the learned counsel has filed an information slip which is annexure P-3 to this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that another suit was also filed for partition. The said suit was also decreed on contest in preliminary form against defendant No. 13 in the said suit and ex parte against other defendants. In the said suit it was declared that the record-of-rights in respect of 'ga' Schedule properties showing as vested land of the State of West bengal is wrong and the right of the plaintiff for 1/4th share in respect of 'ka' schedule properties was also declared. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, midnapore, on 6. 8. 75.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being C. O. 4031 (W) of 1980. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Roy (as His lordship then was) by a judgment and order dated 23. 4. 80 made the following observation:"the application was moved with notice to the learned Government Pleader and Mr. Banerjee has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It appears that in a duly constituted suit the petitioner appropriately established his right, title and claim including interest over the lands in question, the recording whereof have been denied through the order in Annexure 'g'. When the right, title and interest of the petitioner have been safely found by the decrees as produced, so there is no reason why the lands as mentioned in Annexure 'g', should not be recorded in the name of the petitioner and the more so when, an appeal, which was taken by the State of West Bengal from the decree or passed in favour of the petitioner did not succeed. "

( 4 ) AFTER making the aforesaid observation, the learned Judge directed the respondents to have the land mentioned Annexure 'g' recorded in the name of the petitioner in accordance with the determination made in the concerned decree.

( 5 ) ANOTHER writ petition was also filed by the petitioner being C. O. 12898 (W)of 1985 before this Hon'ble Court and that writ petition was also disposed of in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 16. 9. 85 directing the respondents to act in accordance with the judgment and decrees referred to above.

( 6 ) DESPITE so many judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts and which have been directed to be implemented by subsequent directions of the Writ court and also in the misc. cases, the authorities did not act in terms of the said decrees and held that they have published the record-of-rights and it will remain unchanged.

( 7 ) CHALLENGING the said order in the misc. case under section 44 (2a) of the west Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the writ petition being W. P. 13950 (W) of 1999