A Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain a suit for correction of record-of-rights, as it is barred by Section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated April 30, 2012 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2008 affirming the order dated February 17, 2007 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in J. Misc. Case No. 28 of 2005 holding that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 131 of 2001 was not executable.

2. One Balai Charan Maity (since deceased), predecessor-in-interest as well as father of the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 168 of 1977 in the 3rd Court of Munsif, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur against the State of West Bengal & Ors. claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

3. The said Balai Charan Maity died during the pendency of the said suit and the petitioners along with their mother Ashalata Maity (since deceased), were substituted as plaintiffs in the place and stead of the said Balai Charan Maity in Title Suit No. 268 of 1977.

4. In the said title suit a judgment and decree dated 25th May, 1982 was passed whereby the title of the petitioners in respect of the suit property was declared and the defendants were permanently restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit property.

5. In spite of the said decree, the State of West Bengal failed to take any step for correction of the record of rights.

6. The petitioners and their mother Ashalata Maity (since deceased) then filed a suit on judgment in September, 2000 being Title Suit No. 131 of 2000 in the 3rd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 17th September, 2002 whereby the defendants were ordered to correct the record of rights in respect of the entries made therein by inserting the names of the plaintiff in respect of the land stated in the schedule to the plaint. The defendants were further restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the land in question by the plaintiffs.

7. The mother of the plaintiffs, Ashalata Maity, died on June 21, 2004, leaving the petitioners as her only heirs and legal representatives.

8. The petitioners put the decree passed in Title Suit No. 131 of 2000 into execution by instituting Title Execution Case No. 6 of 2004 before the 3rd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk. The opposite parties filed their written objection to the execution case and the same was registered as J. Misc. Case No. 28 of 2005 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. By the order No. 35 dated February 17, 2007 passed in J. Misc. Case No. 28 of 2005, the Ld. Trial Court held that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 131 of 2000 was not executable.

10. Against the said order the petitioners filed a revision application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure being Civil Revision Case No. 3 of 2007 before the Ld. District Judge of Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. The said case was transferred to 4th Fast Track Court of Additional District Judge, Tamluk for hearing and was registered and re-numbered as Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2008.

11. By a judgment and order dated April 30, 2012, the Ld. Additional District Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Tamluk dismissed Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2008 and affirmed the order dated February 17, 2007 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the instant revisional application.

12. The short question that emerges for consideration is whether or not the judgments of the Courts below suffer from such glaring infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13. Appearing in support of the application Ld. Counsel placed the decrees passed in the two Title Suits as also the plaints of the said title suits