The court emphasized the importance of valid ownership rights and the finality of adjudication in land ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Roy, J. - This writ petition has been has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated December 13, 2019 (for short, the impugned order) passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 3178 of 2007 (Bhabani Maiti vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) [for short, the Original Application], whereunder, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of a piece of land being Plot No. 370/411 measuring about 7.5. decimals which is equivalent to about 3276 Barga Foot under Mouza-Dakhin Hazipur, Ward No. 14, J.L. No. 90 Khatian No.- 203 (Sabek), District- 24 Parganas (South) (for short, the land).

3. By virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance dated May 30, 1990 and November 13, 1997, the petitioner purchased the land from one Murati Mohan Naskar and one Dibakar Halder respectively. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the land and had constructed his dwelling house thereupon. Murati had purchased the land from one Amullya Ganguly in the year 1958. On April 1, 1950 Amullya obtained lease in respect of the land from the Khas Mahal Department for a period of five years. The petitioner after purchasing the said land filed an application before the block land and Land Reforms Officer to have his name recorded in respect thereof in the record of right on the basis of the said two registered deeds of conveyance. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected.

4. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court. This Court by its order dated August 11, 1998 directed the Block Land & Reforms Officer (for short, BL & LRO) to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner with a reasoned order. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction the BLLRO by its order dated October 31, 2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for mutation and/or correction of record of rights and held that the land belongs to the State. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a statutory appeal which was dismissed by an order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the Deputy District Land & Land Reforms Officer (for short, DL & LRO) by holding that the land belonged to the State being Khas Mohal property and not a Ryoti land.

5. Being dissatisfied with the order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the DL & LRO the petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:-

" a) An appropriate order setting aside the order dated 7.3.07 passed by The Appellate Authority, The Learned Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24-Parganas (South) in L.A. Appeal No.9 of 06 and the order dated 31.10.05 being order no.5, passed by The Learned Revenue Officer, Diamond-Harbour-I, 24-Parganas (South) in Misc. case no.3.

b) An appropriate order/direction to the respondents to correct the record-of-rights in the light of the judgement and decree passed by The Learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Diamond-Harbour, 24-parganas (South) in Title suit no. 76 of 1977 and also interims of the representatives and the notices as issued by The Learned Revenue Officer, 24-Parganas (South).

c) An appropriate order/direction to the respondents concerned to bring the records of the case for which so that necessary orders can be passed after looking the same.

d) Any other relief or further reliefs passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, which deem fit and proper.

e) Costs and incidentials thereto"

6. The Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order.

7. Mr. Biswajit Sau appearing for petitioner submitted that, the lease granted to Amullya by the Khas Mohal Department was renewed from time to time. By virtue of operation of Section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, the 1953 Act) the land had been vested in the State free from all incumbrances when Amullya was in possession. Amullya's name was recorded in the R.S. Record of Right under the provision of Section 44 of th