The Thika Tenancy Controller does not have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of conveyances and declare them void. Such a determination can only be made by a civil court.

( 1 ) WHILE considering the application for stay filed in the appeal, with consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th May, 1999, dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy under section 13 of the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, was available to the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN order to appropriate the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is necessary to give a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of the writ application.

( 4 ) THE appellant/petitioner appears to have purchased the property in question by a registered conveyance dated 22nd May 1990 from one Sri Jahar Shaw, who had purchased the same from one Debi Charan Shaw. The property is situate at 50, Madan Biswas Lane, Salkia, Police Station-Golabari, under the jurisdiction of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. It appears further that the appellant/petitioner's name has been duly mutated in the records of the Howrah Municipal Corporation and she is also paying rates and taxes in respect thereof to the said Corporation.

( 5 ) IT appears that subsequent to the purchase of the said property by the appellant/petitioner, certain applications were made before the Thika enancy Controller, Howrah, claiming that the land in question was a thika tenancy and that the appellant/petitioner had, therefore, not acquired any right, title and interest in the said property having particular regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 read with sub-section (2) of section 7 of the above mentioned Act.

( 6 ) THE matter was taken up for consideration by the Thika Tenancy Controller, Howrah, on 8th November 1998 and on subsequent dates. By his order dated 29th January, 1999, the Thika Tenancy Controller, Howrah, recorded that the lands in question had been recorded in the Revisional Settlement record-of-rights as thika tenanted lands, and, therefore, came under the purview of the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said 1981 Act" ).

( 7 ) ON the basis of the above, the Thika Controller, Howrah proceeded to determine the question of the validity of the conveyances by which both Jahar Shaw and the appellant/petitioner acquired title to the land in question and after referring to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 7 and sub-section (3) of section 6 of the above Act, he declared the said documents to be void and also declared that the same would have no effect whatsoever.

( 8 ) PURSUANT to his declaration, the Thika Controller, Howrah, directed that the premises in question would stand vested in the State of West Bengal and that the interest of the existing Bharatias in the said premises would be protected. The said order and/or decision of the Thika Tenancy Controller, Howrah, was challenged by the appellant/petitioner by way of a writ proceeding, being W. P. No. 3710 (W) of 1999. As indicated hereinabove, the writ application, which was initially admitted for further consideration on 5th April, 1999, was dismissed by the order passed on 10th May, 1999 on the ground that the appellant/petitioner had an alternative remedy available to her under section 13 of the said Act.

( 9 ) APPEARING in support of the appeal as also the application for stay, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, submitted that the Thika Tenancy Controller, Howrah, exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him in arriving at a decision on the basis of the entries in the R. S. record-of rights, that the property in question comprised a thika tenancy. He also submitted that the Thika Controller, Howrah, had further exceeded his jurisdiction in declaring the two conveyances of Jahar Shaw and Debi Charan Shaw to be void. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the two questions which the Thika Co