(1). This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of unsuccessful applicants before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and is directed against the order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the said Tribunal in O.A. Mo. 3110 of 2005 (LRTT) thereby dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioners. In dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioners, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the B.L. and L.R.O concerned was under no obligation to honour the decree passed by a Civil Court declaring title of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in the property and passing a further decrae for the permanent injunction restraining the State respondent from disturbing the possession of the decree holder. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that ignoring the said decree the proceeding under section 14T (3) of the Act should continue.

(2). Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. First question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether a tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, can declare that a decree for declaration of the title and permanent injunction in favour of the writ petitioner was a nullity as the same was passed in violation of the provisions contained in section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, notwithstanding the fact that State of West Bengal was a party to such decree, and such decree has attained finality.

(3). It is now settled position of law that entry in a record-of-rights does not create any title nor does it extinguish the title of lawful owner but the entry has a presumption of correctness which is, of course, rebut table. In such a situation, if a Civil Court declares title of a person in respect of a property and restrains the State of West Bengal from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, the presumption, arising out of entry in the record-of-rights stands rebutted. The law is equally settled that a party, after suffering a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction, cannot ignore such decree without challenging such decree before appropriate forum at the appropriate time. In the case before us, the State of West Bengal having accepted the decree passed by the Civil Court, the same has attained finality and therefore, a Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act is incompetent to declare that a decree passed by a Civil Court is a nullity.

(4). At this juncture, it will not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Gurdev Singh, Asoke Kumar, reported in AIR 1991 SC page 2219 where the respondent before the Supreme Court wanted to argue that an order of dismissal of service was illegal, inoperative and not binding on the respondents. They wanted the Court to declare that the dismissal was void and inoperative and not binding on them and they continue to be in service. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that if an act was void or ultra vires it is enough for the Court to declare it so and then it collapsed automatically. The aggrieved party can simply seek a declaration that such act was void and not binding upon him; the Supreme Court, however, observed that even if an order which was not made in good faith, and was void, was still an act capable of legal consequences. It bore, the Supreme Court proceeded, no brand of invalidity upon its forehead and unless the necessary proceedings were taken under the law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it would remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.

(5). The Supreme Court further quoted with the approval the following observations of Prof. Wade in Administrative Law, 6th Edn. at page 352: "T