JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present challenge has been preferred against a judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal directed physical possession of the subject land to be restored to the private respondents after eviction of the present petitioners, who were held to be illegal occupants in respect of the said land. While doing so, the learned Tribunal observed inter alia that while a civil decree had been passed in favour of “a certain Basak family members” the said decree had not been executed by recourse to due process prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and that there was no material to demonstrate that the decree was put into execution, nor was there any delivery of possession recorded under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Tribunal further observed that it is well-settled that a decree of declaration of title does not ipso facto terminate possession recorded under a statutory regime unless followed by lawful execution proceedings.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present two writ petitions have been filed.

3. The petitioners in WPLRT 5 of 2026 were not parties to the original application filed by the private respondents before the Tribunal, in respect of which the impugned order has been passed, despite being the decree holders in the suit referred to by the Tribunal, whereas the petitioner in WPLRT 3 of 2026 was impleaded as party to the said proceeding, although not a party to the said suit. Thus, since the petitioners in WPLRT 5 of 2026 are directly affected by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, as they had obtained the decree from the civil court, inter alia declaring their title and confirming their possession in respect of the subject land, which was virtually nullified by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, leave is granted to the said petitioners to move their writ petition on the prayer made by learned counsel for the said petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the proceedings submits that the petitioners in WPLRT 5 of 2026 had previously filed a suit, inter alia, for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, consequentially seeking a relief that the purported patta granted in favour of the private respondents be recorded to be void, being without any foundation. Other consequential reliefs such as injunction were also prayed in the suit.

5. It is submitted that although initially the State as well as the private respondents, who were all defendants in the suit, contested the suit by filing written statements, subsequently the defendants did not contest the suit. Accordingly, an ex parte decree was passed, declaring the title and possession of the writ petitioners in WPLRT 5 of 2026, who were plaintiffs in the said suit, bearing Title Suit No. 177 of 2012, as well as granting consequential reliefs, including a declaration to the effect that the purported grant of patta in favour of the defendants/private respondents was void, being without any basis or foundation.

6. It is submitted that in the absence of any challenge to the said decree by any of the defendants in the suit, the said decree attained finality. Despite such state of affairs, it is argued that the learned Tribunal, unlawfully, ignored the said decree merely on the ground that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. Moreover, the learned Tribunal recorded that the said decree was not put into execution, which according to the petitioners, is not necessary for the same to have a binding effect on the parties.

7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the learned Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in ignoring the civil court’s decree and passing an order of eviction.

8. Learned counsel next argues that no provision, either under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short “the 1955 Act”), the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, or the West Bengal L