The jurisdiction of the WBLRTT does not extend to nullifying the judgment of a civil court in a properly constituted suit, or when the State is one of the contesting parties and the decree is passed on contest against the State.

Altamas Kabir, J: This writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2000, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in Original Application No. 414 of 2000 (LRTT), dismissing the petitioners' application for a direction upon the respondents concerned to correct the relevant Record-of-Right in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Birbhum, in Title Appeal No.8 of 1972, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, in Title Suit No. 157/71 (T.S. 144 of 1969).

2. The learned Tribunal upon applying the provisions of section 57B(2)(a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and upon further interpretation of the reliefs actually prayed for by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, inter alia, came to a finding that the plaintiffs suit, although styled as a Title Suit was, in actuality, a suit for declaration that he was a tenant under his father and uncle. The learned Tribunal also observed that section 57B(2)(c) had excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain a suit for such declaration no matter, how the suit had been styled, because the genuineness of the tenancy and whether it was a collusive transaction to evade the ceiling provision was to be decided by the authorities under the Act. According to the learned Tribunal, by deciding the said question, the learned District Judge acted without jurisdiction and the judgment delivered in Title Appeal was, therefore, a nullity in the eye of law.

3. Appearing in support of the application, Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned counsel, submitted that in fact, the order of the learned Tribunal was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, being a creature of statute, the powers of the Tribunal would have to be exercised in accordance with the powers as vested in the Tribunal under the statute. According to Mr. Mukherjee, there is no provision in the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, which empowers the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal to nullify and/or in effect overrule a judgment and decree of a civil court.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the opening words of section 6 of the aforesaid Act indicate that the learned Tribunal could deal with matters relating to events which had taken place after the said Act came into force. Mr. Mukherjee urged that since the judgment of the civil court was long prior to the commencement of the 1997 Act, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in sitting in appeal over the judgment of the civil court.

5. On behalf of the State and the State respondents, it was urged by Mrs. Manjuri Gupta, learned Advocate, that the provisions of section 6(d) of the aforesaid Act, as it initially stood, might not have vested the Tribunal with authority to declare the judgment of a civil court to be a nullity, but following the amendment of clause (d) of section 6 by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2001, the learned Tribunal was vested with such authority by the amended provisions which reads as follows:-

"3. Amendment of section 6.-In section 6 of the principal Act-

(1) In clause(a), for the words "an order in original", the words "any order" shall be substituted; and

(2) for clause(d), the following clause shall be substituted:-

(d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any act under the provision of a specified Act."

6. Mrs. Gupta urged that under the amended provision of clause (d) of section 6 of the aforesaid Act, the Tribunal was now vested with authority to decide applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act which includes the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in view of the provisions of section 2 (r) thereof.

7. Mrs. Gupta urged that the suit which had been filed by the petitioner was in effect a suit for correction of the entries in the rel