JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present two writ petitions assail the self-same judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, both filed by one Kalyan Das, alias Kalyan Kumar Das, one in the name of the deity Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew, claiming himself to be the president of a committee which is allegedly looking after the deity in the capacity of sebait, and the other in his individual capacity.

2. The matter arises out of two independent original applications, one filed by the present writ petitioner and the other by the private respondents.

3. The present writ petitioner, in its original application, sought for a direction on the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner’s name ought to be recorded as Raiyat in respect of the disputed plots.

4. On the other hand, the other original application was filed by the private respondents, seeking for a declaration that the subject plots had not vested in the State, for declaration that the recording of their names as Raiyats in respect of the subject plots was correct, and for relief in the nature of injunction to protect their possession.

5. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the original application filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the same, having no truck with the deity.

6. On the other hand, limited relief was granted in the original application of the private respondents, by holding on the basis of the materials before the Tribunal that the subject property had not vested in the State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, by placing reliance on Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur and others vs. Gopinath Das and others reported at AIR 1960 Cal 741, a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, that according to Hindu law, a sebait represents the deity and he alone is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity; in exceptional circumstances, however, where the sebait does not, or by his own act deprives himself of the power of representing the deity, a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debottar property.

8. It is contended that in the present case, the private respondents have claimed to purchase the subject property, which was dedicated to the deity, from the heirs of one of the original sebaits, by altering the character of the property to a secular property.

9. Such transfer, ex facie, was barred by law in the absence of any leave being taken from a competent court before such transfer was effected, particularly in the absence of any proof that the transfer was for the benefit of the deity.

10. It is secondly argued that the Arpannama-in-question, by which the property was purportedly dedicated to the deity, was embossed on a stamp paper of Bangladesh, which nation had not come into existence on the date of execution of the Arpannama in the year 1946.

11. That apart, the transfer deed in favour of the private respondents was executed by the heirs of one Nitya Krishna Bhattacharya, whose name does not feature among the heirs of the settlor as appearing from the Arpannama itself.

12. In the Arpannama, it was provided that the settlor Ram Narayan Bhattacharya and his sons, who are named therein, were appointed as the sebaits. However, the name of Nitya Krishna does not feature in the said document.

13. Thus, it is argued that the very premise of the alleged title of the private respondents is in considerable doubt.

14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner next argues that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in deciding conclusively that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to maintain the representation before the appropriate authority, that is, the BL & LRO, thereby depriving the writ petitioners of two forums.

15. In the event an adjudication was made on the representation by the BL & LR