The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit and declare title when a question of title is in dispute, and the Revenue Officer's authority under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act cannot be questioned in Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Balurghat on 17th February, 1993 in Title Appeal No.87 of 1991 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1991 and 5th August, 1991 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Balurghat in Title Suit No.81 of 1988 is under challenge in the instant second appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants.

2. The appellants as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.81 of 1988 praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State of West Bengal and its Officers stating, inter alia, that one Annapurna Ghosh, since deceased, was the original owner of the suit schedule property situated in different mouzas within P.S Balurghat. The suit property was recorded in the name of the said Annapurna Ghosh during revisional settlement. The plaintiffs are the grand-sons of the said Annapurna, since deceased. The said Annapurna transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs by executing two separate deeds of gift on 5th August, 1981 which were duly registered on 10th August, 1981. The plaintiffs, on attaining majority started to live separately from the family of their father. They were all along in possession of the suit property. Before institution of the suit in the year 1988, they were threatened to be dispossessed from the suit property by some followers of a particular political party. Accordingly they conducted search in the local office of the BL & LRO and came to know for the first time that the suit property was vested to the State following a proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter as 'the said Act'). It is contended by the plaintiffs that the said proceeding bearing No.66/T/76 under Section 14T(3) of the said Act was initiated against Kalipada Ghosh, father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have alleged that they are not family members of the family of Kalipada Ghosh. They have separate units of family and the suit property was illegally vested to the state treating the plaintiffs as members of the family of their father on 15th February, 1971.

3. The State of West Bengal contested the suit by filing written statement. The state claimed the vesting order valid, legal and operative. The order of vesting was passed after giving due opportunity to the said Kalipada Ghosh of being heard. It is also contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute as regards order of vesting under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

4. The learned trial judge famed as many as ten issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Parties led evidence.

5. While adjudicating the issues, the learned trial court held that the suit was barred under the provision of 14X of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. it was further held that though the plaintiffs/appellants were not parties to the said proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the said Act, one of the plaintiffs all through represented his father in the said proceeding. Therefore, the plaintiff knew about the initiation of the said vesting proceeding under Section 14T(3) of the said Act. Therefore, the order of vesting is binding upon the plaintiffs/appellants. Thirdly, Chapter IIB of the said Act came into force on and from 15th February, 1971. In order to determine the ceiling limit of a family, the number of members of a particular family as on 15th February, 1971 is to be taken into consideration. On the said relevant date, the plaintiffs were minors and dependents upon their father Kalipada Ghosh. Therefore, they were rightly treated as family members of Kalipada Ghosh by the Revenue Officer while determining the ceiling limit and accordingly, suit was dismissed on contest.

6. The judgment and decree of dismissal passed in Title Suit No.81 of 1988 were assailed by the plaintiffs by filing an appeal being Title Appeal No.87 of 1991. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Balurghat dismissed the sai