A judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court is final and binding on the parties to the suit and cannot be upset by a Tribunal in a subsequent proceeding.

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.

1. THE petitioner herein has assailed the judgment and order dated, 3rd August, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No.622 of 2007 whereby the said learned Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner herein. THE factual background leading to filing of this application are as follows :-

THE subject land originally belonged to Zamindar Kalicharan Nag Chowdhury, who settled the said land in favour of one Anukul Chandra Dutta. THEreafter, said Anukul Chandra Dutta settled the land by a registered deed of Kabuliyat being No.3981 of 1939 in favour of Mustakim Mallick, Goljer Mallick, Khater Mallick and Abuhakkar Mallick. THE mother, of the petitioner Mst. Tachirannessa Bibi purchased the said land from the aforesaid Mustakim Mallick and others by a registered deed being No.8772 dated 16th July, 1962. THE mother of the petitioner after purchasing the said land by the aforesaid registered deed was in. possession or the same and after the death of Mst. Tachirannessa Bibi present petitioner being the only legal heir inherited the property and is possessing the same.

2. IT is the specific case of the petitioner that the names of the vendors of his mother namely, Mustakim Mallick and others, who got the land through a registered deed of Kabuliyat being No.3981 of 1939, were not recorded in the RS record of rights in Column No. 13 as raiyat during the RS settlement operation and by mistake the names were recorded in Column No.23 that is in the remarks Column as permissive possessor and the name of the Zamindar Kalicharan Nag Chowdhury was also recorded therein. In the year 1966, mother of the petitioner came to know that due to the aforesaid erroneous recording in the RS recoof rights aforesaid land had vested to the State.

3. THE mother of the petitioner came to learn that Mustakim Mallick and his brothers were not present at the time of revisional settlement operation and accordingly, the entries had been made erroneously by recording the land in question in the names of Mustakim Mallick and others as permissive possessor under the Zamindar Kalicharan Nag Chowdhury ignoring the fact that the said Zamindar settled the said land in favour of Anukul Chandra Dutta who thereafter, settled the said land in favour of Mustakim Mallick and his brothers in 1939.

4. ACCORDING to the mother of the petitioner the land should have been recorded in the names of Mustakim Mallick and others during the revisional settlement in Column No.13 of the RS record of rights as raiyat instead of recording the same under the Zamindar as permissive possessor who had no nexus and/or relation with Mustakim Mallick and others at any point of time since Mustakim Mallick and others got the land from one Anukul Chandra Dutta by a registered deed of Kabuliyat in the year 1939 and the original Zamindar Kalicharan Nag Chowdhury transferred the land in favour of said Anukul Chandra Dutta before 1939.

5. IN the aforesaid circumstances, mother of the petitioner filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit No.122 of 1966 against the Zamindar Kalicharan Nag Chowdhury and others including the State of West Bengal for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

6. AFTER hearing the parties; the learned Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff namely, the mother of the petitioner. The defendants including the State of West Bengal did not prefer any appeal from the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Basirhat in compliance with the above order of the learned Munsif, initiated Misc. Case being No. 3/69 and directed the concerned Tahasilder to realise the rent from the mother of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, Tahasilder of the area realised land revenue for the land from the mother of the petitioner by issuing rent receipt being BR/R 187404.

7. THE mother of the petitioner thereafter filed an applic