Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY AND ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, JJ.
Prabhangshu Sekhar Maity – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.L.R.T. No. 163 of 2009
Decided On: 27.01.2012
LAND REFORM - VESTING ORDER - CORRECTION OF RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF CIVIL COURT - BINDING EFFECT - JURISDICTION OF BLOCK LAND & LAND REFORMS OFFICER - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL - W.P. No. 5348 (W) of 1997 - TITLE SUIT No. 135 of 1983 - TITLE APPEAL No. 28 of 1985 - AIR 1988 SC 1531 - AIR 1951 SC 217 - AIR 1990 SC 325 - The judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court is final and binding on the parties and cannot be ignored or avoided by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer or the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal while correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the judgment and order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissing his application for correction of record-of-rights in respect of the land in question. The land was originally owned by Smt. Rashomony Nayak, who transferred it to Asit Baran Nayak by a deed of gift. Asit Baran Nayak then sold the land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed. In the meantime, a vesting order was passed in respect of the land by the State Government. Smt. Rashomony Nayak and two other co-sharers filed a Civil Suit for declaring their right, title, and interest over the land. The Civil Court decreed the suit in their favor. The State Government appealed to the Assistant District Judge, who also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs then filed a writ petition in the High Court for issuing appropriate directions to the concerned authority for correcting the record-of-rights. The High Court directed the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I, however, adjudicated the entire matter and arrived at the findings that the plaintiffs had not acquired any right, title, and interest over the suit land barring possession. The petitioner challenged this order before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, which also held that the order of the Civil Court was passed in a matter on which the Court's jurisdiction was barred and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no authority, jurisdiction, and/or scope to decide the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court and refuse to act in terms of the said judgment and decree while taking steps to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question. The Court further held that the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal should have held that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter of correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983.
Issues: 1. Whether the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had the authority to decide the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court and refuse to act in terms of the said judgment and decree while taking steps to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question? 2. Whether the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal should have held that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter of correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court is final and binding on the parties and cannot be ignored or avoided by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer or the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal while correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question. 2. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no authority, jurisdiction, and/or scope to decide the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court and refuse to act in terms of the said judgment and decree while taking steps to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question. 3. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal should have held that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter of correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I on 23rd April, 2003 as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 3359 of 2003 on 13th December, 2007. The Court also cancelled the patta granted by the respondent authorities in favor of the private respondents. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I was directed to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the lands in question strictly in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application on merits rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. From the records, we find that one Smt. Rashomony Nayak was the original owner of the land in question which is now claimed by the petitioner herein. The said Smt. Rashomony transferred the land to one Asit Baran Nayak by executing a deed of gift. The said Sri Asit Baran Nayak thereafter, transferred the land to the writ petitioner herein through a registered sale deed executed on 16th June, 2003. In the meantime, vesting order was passed in respect of the land in question by the State Government.
2. Challenging the said vesting order, Smt. Rashomony, original owner of the land in question along with other two co-sharers filed a Civil Suit in the Additional Court of Munsif at Contai being Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 for declaring the right, title and interest over the said suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. The Title Suit was decided on contest in presence of the learned advocate representing the State of West Bengal and the learned Civil Court decreed the aforesaid Civil Suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the State Government before the Assistant District Judge, Contai being Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Contai. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 5348 (W) of 1997 for issuing appropriate direction to the concerned authority for correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the suit land.
3. The High Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition directed the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983.
4. While considering the said representation for correction of the record-of-rights, most unfortunately the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I again adjudicated the entire matter and arrived at the findings that the plaintiffs had not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land barring possession and thus virtually acted as the appellate authority over the learned Civil Court.
5. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I was under an obligation and duty bound to correct the record-of-rights on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court in Title Suit No. 136 of 1983 since the said judgment and decree reached finality after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the State Government.
6. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I most unfortunately violated the specific direction passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 5348 (W) 1997 since the BL&LRO did not consider the claim of the petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983.
7. Challenging the aforesaid order of the BL&LRO, Kanthi-I, an application was filed before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and the said Tribunal also held that the order of the Civil Court has been passed in a matter on which Court's jurisdiction was barred and therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the said BL&LRO, Kanthi-I.
8. We are sorry to say that the elementary principle of law has not been adhered to either by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I or by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in deciding the matter relating to correction of the record of rights in respect of the lands in question. It is well settled that even an erroneous order will have a binding effect on the parties to the proceedings although the same will not have any
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
