Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, bars the Tribunal from admitting an application where the applicant has not availed of all remedial measures available to him under the relevant specified Act.

Joytosh Banejree, J.

The present private respondent, namely, Mondals and others are said to be the heirs of one Baikuntha Nath Mondal who, it is stated, purchased the suit plot, namely, Dag No. 3748 and other lands from the Maities in the year, 1958. It is stated that the said Maities are the Sanja Tenants under the Mahapatras, the admitted owners of the land, by virtue of a Kabuliyat which was valid upto the year 1340 B.S. corresponding to 1934 A.D. The said Baikuntha Nath Mondal instituted T.S. No. 167 of 1968 against the State of West Bengal and the said Mahapatras and others for a declaration of title and permanent injunction, on the assertion that the Maities were the lessees under the said Mahapatras by virtue of the said registered Kabuliyat and their names were recorded in the revisional record-of-rights. But afterwards, it was found that the names of the Maities were deleted and the said land was treated as the lands of the said Mahapatras and as those were not retained by Mahapatras who were intermediaries, those lands stood vested in the State. Hence the suit. The said T.S. was dismissed by the trial Court and on an appeal being T.A. No. 52/1971, the appeal was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 13.6.73 and the right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff, namely, Baikuntha Nath Mondal was declared. It is not disputed that the Mondals did not take any step against the State of West Bengal and others since the judgment and decree dated 13.6.73 passed in T.A. 52/71 by the Sub-Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore for years together. It transpires that after more than 25 years from passing of the said judgment and decree, the Mondals moved this Court and obtained an order dated 25.8.98 from the Hon'ble Justice N.K. Mitra (as His Lordship then was) in a writ application [W.P. No. 15158 (W) 1998] directing the State respondents to correct the relevant record-or-rights in terms of the judgment and decree of the appeal Court. The petitioners of this proceeding who are the Patta holders under the State in respect of the suit lands which stood vested were not made parties in the said writ application. Against the decision of the writ application [W.P. 15158(W) 98], the petitioners preferred an appeal (M.A.T. No. 1167 of 2000) before the Division Bench of this Court and the learned Division Bench disposed of the same on 6.7.2000 by holding that the petitioners would be given an opportunity of hearing by the State respondents. After hearing by the Revenue Officer, pursuant to the direction of this Court such authority passed a detailed order from which admittedly no appeal under section 44(3) was preferred. The authority concerned through the judgment held that Maities had no right to sale the suit plots and as such the Mondals, the purchasers did not get any right, title or interest in the suit plot by such purpose. It was further found that the Maities were not cultivating the land after the expiary of the lease period which was valid upto 1340 B.S. With these findings the application of the Mondals for correction of record-of-rights was rejected. The Mondals then moved the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on O.A. No. 3046 of 2000 and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge through the present writ application.

2. In this background, the short point involved here is whether the application before the learned Tribunal below is hit by section 10(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. Section 10(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, hereinafter be referred to as the Act, runs as follows:-

"10(3): - Save as expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall not admit an application that-

(a) the application has availed of all remedial measures available to him under the relevant specified Act, and

(b) the remedial measures available under the provisions of the relevant specified Act are not adequate or shall cause