The B.L. & L.R.O. and appellate authority are authorized to correct erroneous ownership records, vindicating claimants' rights over real property.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J.

1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

2. The brief backdrop of the present challenge is as follows:

3. The names of one Gopeshwar and one Kapileswar were recorded as joint owners of the disputed plot in the C.S. Records of Rights. The present writ petitioners claim through three sons of Gopeshwar, namely Bisheswar, Anadi and Dukhaharan whereas another son Kashinath apparently left no heirs.

4. As per the writ petitioners’ case, the writ petitioners inherited the property of Gopeshwar through their respective fathers.

5. On the other hand, it transpires that in the R.S. Records of Rights, at least since the year 1959, the name of one Pashan Bala, which initially appeared in the Records of Rights, was scored through and the name of one Moti Bala introduced as “ezmali” (joint).

6. The writ petitioners have not challenged the said recording since decades, prior to the purchase of the property by the present private respondent. The cause of action for the writ petitioners approaching the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for correction of the Records of Rights was the mutation of the property and consequential alteration in the Records of Rights exclusively in the name of the private respondent upon his purported purchase.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the present writ petitioners all along appeared throughout the C.S. Records and R.S. Records and Moti Bala’s name was merely recorded with the rider “ezmali”, there was no occasion for the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. to alter the L.R. Records of Rights, thereby introducing the name of the private respondent as exclusive owner, instead of the writ petitioners or their predecessors.

8. When the writ petitioners approached the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for further rectification of their Records of Rights by altering the name of the private respondents and substituting in place the names of the writ petitioners by reverting the position back to as it was prior to the purported purchase by the private respondents, the same was refused by the B.L. & L.R.O., prompting the writ petitioners to prefer a challenge before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, on the basis of the recording in the R.S. Records to the effect that Moti Bala was recorded as “ezmali”, whereas the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioners’ names were also recorded, directed that the names in the Records of Rights be altered to the tune of 50% in the name of the writ petitioners and the rest 50% in the name of the private respondent.

9. Being thus aggrieved, the present private respondent preferred a challenge before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the order of the appellate authority on the grounds as set out in the impugned judgment, pursuant to which, it is alleged, the private respondent have approached the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for reverting the records back to the original position in his name.

10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that while the learned Tribunal came to categorical findings that the parties were unable to produce any deed to show that Moti Bala purchased the portion of either Gopeshwar or Pashan Bala and the recording in the name of the private respondent, as the purchaser from Moti Bala, was erroneous, the learned Tribunal, instead of directing the B.L. & L.R.O. to rectify the Records of Rights and directing the entire property to be recorded in the name of the writ petitioners, merely set aside the order of the appellate authority as a whole, thereby, in effect, restoring the order of rejection by the B.L. & L.R.O., the net effect of which would be that the recording in the name of the private respondent exclusively would be restored. It is argued that the component of 50% of the property, which was directed to be recorded by the appellate authority in the name of the writ petitioners, was not entered into by the Tribuna