IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a decree passed by the High Court on Second Appeal and its impact on the State, emphasizing the entitlement of the petitioner to relief in terms of the decree.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated March 17, 2021, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A.977 of 2020.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, a suit for partition was initially filed. Thereafter, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed in which, State was a party-defendant. The suit was initially partly decreed. First Appeal was carried. In the First Appeal, again the suit was partly decreed. A Second Appeal was carried. The Second Appeal was disposed of by a judgment and decree dated August 24, 2001 where, the High Court, decreed the entirety of the suit in favour of the plaintiff as against the State-defendant. He submits that by virtue of such decree passed on Second Appeal, the writ petitioners are entitled to the entirety of the plots of land concerned. Petitioner applied before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer in terms of the decree passed on Second Appeal. Such application was disposed of by an order dated November 5, 2019 passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer negating the claim. He submits that, the writ petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A.977 of 2020, which was dismissed by the order dated March 17, 2021. He submits that, the learned Tribunal misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of Section 10 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. In support of his contention he relies upon 2016 (3) CLJ (Cal) page 10 (Sri Bidyapati Pal and ors. vs. State of West Bengal & ors.) and an unreported decision of a coordinate Bench passed on November 16, 2021 in W.P.L.R.T.49 of 2021 (Sri Jiban Krishna Roy vs. State of West Bengal & ors.). He contends that, Section 10 of the Act of 1997 does not create any embargo on the Tribunal in hearing and deciding an Original Application directed against the order of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer without a statutory appeal being preferred therefrom.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State contends that the claim of the writ petitioner is barred in view of 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953.

4. In the facts of the present case, initially, amongst the private parties a suit for partition was filed. The partition suit was decreed on September 25, 1981. On the basis of such decree, the writ petitioners approached Civil Court by way of a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction as against the State in respect of five plots concerned. Such suit was decreed. An appeal was carried. The appeal was disposed of by a decree dated June 5, 1987, affirming the decree dated September 25, 1981 passed in the suit for declaration and injunction. Both the trial Court and the learned First Appeal Court, granted part decree of the prayers sought for by the writ petitioners in such suit. On Second Appeal, by the judgment and decree dated August 24, 2001, High Court, granted decree for the entirety of the claim of the writ petitioners in the suit. The High Court held as follows:-

“…….I hold that the right of retention of the suit lands by the plaintiffs cannot extinct and as such the right of retention of the suit lands by the plaintiffs cannot be interfered with by the defendant-State of West Bengal without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. Thus, I find substance in this appeal. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the courts below therefore stand set-aside and the suit is decreed also without costs. The respondent State of West Bengal is also permanently injuncted from interfering with the entire suit lands….”

5. Armed with the decree passed in Second Appeal, the writ petitioner applied before the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer for acting in terms of such decree passed in Second Appeal. Such application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the order dated November 5, 2019 passed by the concern