The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits challenging vesting orders under the Land Reforms Act, and the availability of specific adjudicative mechanism and forum of appeal provided under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Kausik Chanda, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 13, 2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated November 29, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court at Burdwan dismissing the Title Suit No. 147 of 1994.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by one Biseswar Pal, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff against the State of West Bengal and the Revenue Officer, Guskara, Burdwan, impleading his two sons namely Nemai Chandra Paul and Brojo Nath Paul as Proforma Defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff owned total 12.80 acres of land as described in schedule "A" of the plaint. In the year 1968, the said Biseswar (the plaintiff) and his wife Gayatri, by an oral family settlement, separated the said two sons from the family and transferred the property described in the Schedule-B to the plaint. A memorandum was also prepared to that effect. After such separation the family of the plaintiff comprised of six members: Biseswar himself, his wife and four daughters. As per Section 14M of West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Land Reforms Act for short) the plaintiff was entitled to retain 14.52 (12.36+1.40 + .76) acres of agricultural lands in irrigated area. Gayatri Bala, expired before 1971 and the plaintiff married for the second time. From his second wife his son, Prosanto, and .daughter, Chandana, were born. The concerned Revenue Officer, who had been impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit, started a suo motu case in 1994 against the plaintiff and without giving him any opportunity of being heard, vested the agricultural lands as mentioned in the Schedule "C" of the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had no land in excess of ceiling limit and the Revenue Officer, by treating the 'B' Schedule lands as the lands of the plaintiff, had passed the vesting order.

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit praying for the following reliefs:-

" a) according to the averments in the plaint your honour would be graciously pleased to declare the right of the plaintiff to the (c) schedule land to retain within his ceiling and that the A schedule land is possessed by the plaintiff within his ceiling limit and lands in B schedule are not of the plaintiff to be included within his ceiling but the proforma defendants no. 3 & 4 are the owners of the same and your honour would be graciously pleased to promulgate a permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 & 2 restraining from treating B schedule land within the ceiling of the plaintiff and be restrained from ousting and distributing lands in (c) schedule to any person which has been illegally declared as excess land of the plaintiff by the Revenue officer in a suo moto proceeding.

b) all costs of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants no. 1 & 2;

c) decree for any other relief or reliefs if the plaintiff is entitled to under law and equity."

5. Though an issue as to the of the maintainability of the suit was framed by the learned Trial Judge in view of Section 14X of the Land Reforms Act, none of the parties pressed the issue and as such the learned Trial Judge did not adjudicate the said issue. Before the appeal court below also the bar to entertain the suit arising out of Section 14X of the Land Reforms Act was neither raised nor considered.

6. In our view, since this was a jurisdictional issue relating to competence of the court to receive the plaint, the question of maintainability of the suit should have been decided by the courts below at the first instance before dealing with the other issues relating to the merit of the case even though the said issue was not pressed by the parties. In this second appeal we are inclined to decide the said issue since it travels to the root of the jurisdiction of the