Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Pratap Kumar Ray, Md. Abdul Ghani, JJ.
Saira Bibi - Appellant
Versus
State 82 - Respondent
W.P.L.R.T. No. 673 of 2007
Decided On : May 17,2011
LAND REFORM - ESTATE ACQUISITION - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - REVENUE OFFICER - TRIBUNAL: 1. Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted under section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, in matters relating to alteration of entries in the record-of-rights, disputes involving determination of the question of entitlement to retain land or estate under the Act, and matters to be inquired into, decided, dealt with, or determined by the State Government or any specified authority. 2. Revenue Officer has the power to revise an entry in the record of rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act on an application or suo motu within the prescribed period. 3. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the legality and validity of orders passed by authorities under specified Acts, including the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 4. A party aggrieved by an order passed by a Revenue Officer under section 44(2a) may appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed period and on payment of the prescribed court fees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming a 7/32nd share in the suit property based on inheritance law, filed a Title Suit in 1990, which resulted in a preliminary decree in 1995 and a final decree in 1999. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revision of the record of rights under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directed the Revenue Officer to consider the matter in light of the civil court's judgment and decree. Despite the Tribunal's order, the Revenue Officer did not take any action except for issuing a notice for a hearing. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Revenue Officer's order passed during the pendency of the writ application was not subject to challenge in the present writ application due to the settled position that all matters arising out of a particular field of law for which different Tribunals were constituted should be decided as a Court of first instance. The court further held that the petitioner could assail the order dated 10th September, 2007, passed by the Revenue Officer, before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which was the appropriate forum to decide the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit for declaration, injunction, and partition of the suit property, despite the provisions of section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953? 2. Whether the Revenue Officer had the authority to revise the entry in the record of rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953? 3. Whether the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an application challenging the order passed by the Revenue Officer under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted under section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, in matters relating to alteration of entries in the record-of-rights, disputes involving determination of the question of entitlement to retain land or estate under the Act, and matters to be inquired into, decided, dealt with, or determined by the State Government or any specified authority. 2. The Revenue Officer has the power to revise an entry in the record of rights under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act on an application or suo motu within the prescribed period. 3. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the legality and validity of orders passed by authorities under specified Acts, including the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 4. A party aggrieved by an order passed by a Revenue Officer under section 44(2a) may appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed period and on payment of the prescribed court fees.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 10th September, 2007, passed by the Revenue Officer, before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The court directed the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the application and decide the matter on merit, taking into account the petitioner's legal right to claim title over the property under the law of inheritance and other relevant points.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
1. HEARD learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. LET paper books as filed today be kept with the record.
This case has a chequered history.
3. A Title Suit being No. 186 of 1990 filed in the Court of Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore being a suit for declaration, injunction and partition of schedule property, wherein a preliminary decree on 24th May, 1995, declaring the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the property to the extent of 7/32nd share in respect of the suit property was passed. Said preliminary decree, due to amicable settlement in between the parties, was declared in final form and a final decree was passed by accepting compromise petition on 13th May, 1999, filed in the said suit, by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Midnapore. On that basis, the present writ petitioner filed application praying for revision of record of rights prepared under the Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.
4. AN Original Application being No. O.A. 2932 of 2002 (LRTT) was moved before the West Bengla Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal who by the order dated 3rd October, 2002 passed an order directing the concerned Revenue Officer to dispose of the application on considering the judgment and decree of the Civil Court passed in the said title suit. The order passed by the learned Tribunal below in the earlier original application aforesaid reads such:
"3.10.2002 - The learned counsel for the applicant is present and files affidavit of service which be kept with the records. The Government representative is present. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The applicant's grievance is that though she filed an application for correction of the ROR in her favour the application has not yet been considered by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kharagpur-Il. The learned counsel for be applicant refers to the judgment and decree in title suit No. 186 of 1990. However, we find that the State of West Bengal was not present during the hearing of the suit. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in certain matters, like vesting of land in the State, correction of ROR etc. has been ousted under section 57B (1 and 2) of the West Bengal Instates Acquisition Act. In the circumstances we dispose of this application by directing the B.L. and L.R.O., Kharagpur-II, Dist.-Midnapore, to treat this application as a representation before him from the applicant for correction of ROR under section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and dispose it of within three months from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant and other interested persons strictly in accordance with law."
Despite the said order. Revenue Officer did not consider the issue, save and except issuance of a notice fixing hearing date on 18th January, 2006, where writ petitioner appeared. In view of pendency of the situation, the writ petitioner filed this writ application affirming the same on 31st July, 2007, assailing the order of the learned Tribunal dated 3rd October, 2002 whereby and where under the leaned Tribunal below directed the concerned Revenue Officer only to consider the issue. It is the grievance raised by the writ-petitioner in the writ application that once there is a declaration of title in a partition suit, the question of legal embargo of the Civil Court as has been observed by learned Tribunal below in the order impugned referring section 57B (1 and 2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, had no applicability. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that civil suit was filed not assailing any order of vesting or for any order to correct the record of rights, but it was filed to ascertain the title of the property on the basis of law of inheritance applicable in the filed and, as such, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the suit which was nothing but a suit for declaration of title and partition. It is further co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
