Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tarun Chatterjee & S.P. Talukdar, JJ.
Sudharani Maity & Ors.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P. L.R.T. No. 687 of 2001
Decided On : 11.9.2002
LAND REFORMS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY ACT - SECTION 57B(2) - TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION - DECREE OF CIVIL COURT - NULLIFICATION - CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - POWER OF TRIBUNAL - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SECTION 44 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - TITLE DISPUTES - CIVIL SUIT MAINTAINABILITY - WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 57B(1), (2), (3) & (4) - VALIDITY - DECREE BINDING ON STATE - TRIBUNAL'S POWER TO NULLIFY DECREE - SECTION 57B(2)(A) - INTERPRETATION - FINALITY OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 57B(2)(B) - INTERPRETATION - DETERMINATION OF TENANCY STATUS - SECTION 57B(2)(C) - INTERPRETATION - ERRONEOUS ENTRIES IN RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - CIVIL SUIT JURISDICTION - SECTION 57B(2) - BAR ON SUITS - EXCEPTIONS - UNION OF INDIA VS. K.N. SANKARAPPA - JUDICIAL DECREE - EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATURE CANNOT SET ASIDE - APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (Tribunal) which held that a decree passed by a civil court declaring the title and possession of certain lands in favor of the writ petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was void due to the bar under section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The Tribunal had dismissed the writ petitioners' application for correction of entries in the relevant record-of-rights relating to the lands in question on the ground that the civil court decree was a nullity.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the civil court decree was void and that the lands in question must have vested in the State. 2. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to nullify the effects of a decree passed by the civil court. 3. The decree passed by the civil court was binding on the State and its authorities, as no second appeal was filed against the decree. 4. The Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Act to nullify the effects of a decree passed by the civil court. 5. The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the lands in question, as the matters in dispute did not fall within the mischief of section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 6. The Tribunal erred in holding that the decree passed by the civil court was a nullity and that no reliance could be placed on such a decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to nullify the effects of a decree passed by the civil court. 2. Whether the decree passed by the civil court was binding on the State and its authorities. 3. Whether the Tribunal had the power or jurisdiction under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Act to nullify the effects of a decree passed by the civil court. 4. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the lands in question.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal's power under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Act is adjudicatory in nature and is limited by the provisions of the Act. The Act does not confer any specific power on the Tribunal to decide title in respect of lands in question, which power is conferred only on the civil court. 2. The decree passed by the civil court was binding on the State and its authorities, as no second appeal was filed against the decree. 3. The Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction under the Act to nullify the effects of a decree passed by the civil court. 4. The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the lands in question, as the matters in dispute did not fall within the mischief of section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was sent back to the concerned officer for consideration of the application for correction of the entries in the record-of-rights in respect of the lands in question.
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
This writ application is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 12th June, 2001 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 793 of 2000.
2. The predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners Monorama Maity instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 55 of 1972 against the State of West Bengal represented by the Collector, Midnapore as principal defendant along with other proforma defendants for declaration of title in respect of certain lands, particulars of which were given in the schedule of the plaint of that suit with a further declaration that the entries in the revisional record-of-rights in respect of such lands were without any foundation and therefore those lands were not liable to be vested to the State. They also prayed for a declaration that such entries were erroneous and for a decree for permanent injunction. The State of West Bengal contested the said suit by filing a written statement. After a contested hearing, the suit was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in which right, title and interest in respect of the lands in question was declared except the plot No. 158 of Mouza Bara Kashinathpur. A decree was also passed to the extent that such lands had not vested in the State. The State of West Bengal by the said judgment and decree was permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in respect of the lands in question. An appeal was carried by the State of West Bengal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is not in dispute that against the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the courts below, no second appeal was preferred by the State of West Bengal. On the basis of the said judgment and decree declaring that the entries in the revisional record of rights relating to the lands in question were erroneous, several representations were filed by the writ petitioners to correct the entries made in the relevant record-of-rights relating to such lands. But steps were not taken by the concerned officer to consider the prayer of the writ petitioners regarding the entries of the relevant record-of-rights relating to the lands in question. Against such inaction on the part of the concerned officer a petition was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties by an order dated 12th June, 2001 holding inter alia that the civil suit related matters specified in clause (b) and clause (c) of section 57B (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and was held to have abated. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the decree passed by the civil court and affirmed by the appellate court was non est in the eye of law and therefore, the lands in question must have vested in the State. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application of the writ petitioners by holding that direction for correction of the entries in the record-of-rights could not be made. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the writ petitioners moved this writ application, which we heard in presence of learned counsel for the parties.
3. In our view, the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the decree of the civil court affirmed in appeal was without jurisdiction and therefore the decree being void was not binding on the State authorities. Before we proceed further on this aspect of the matter, we may keep it on record that the Tribunal ought not have gone into the question as noted hereinabove at a stage when the authorities themselves had not decided the application for correction of the entries of the relevant record-of-rights relating to the lands in question. That is to say, the Tribunal was moved a
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
