Judgment 1. IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, being three several deities represented by shebajt, have challenged the Judgments and Orders dated 14th August, 1976, 16th August, 1976 and 13th October, 1976 in 7a Forms L. R. Case nos. 201, 202 and 203 of 1976 passed by the Revenue Officer, Mahishadal Thana, settlement Camp, the Respondent No. 3, under Section 14 (1) (3) read with Section 14 (M) (5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the land Reforms Act.. 2. IN the said impugned Judgments and orders the Revenue Officer held that the family of the shebait has retained land as per ceiling provided by the Land Reforms act and as such the lands owned by the endowment concerned other than of a public nature shall be deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiary and the beneficiary shall be deemed to be a raiyat under the Land Reforms Act, who is not entitled to retain any further land in view of the ceiling provision under the Land Reforms Act. The case of the petitioners is that by a registered Deed of Gift and/or the Arpannama dated 14th July, 1893, one Smt. Bichitrimoyee Dassi, since deceased, gifted and/or dedicated all the lands covered by the said Deed of Gift and/or Arpannama to the three deities being Shri Shri Dayaleswar mahadeb Jiew, Shri Shri Trilochaneswaraksha jiew and Shri Shri Lakshmi janardhan Jiew. In other words, the said donor created an abosolute "debutter" of the said lands in favour of the said deities. The deities became the absolute owners of the dedicated 'property. When the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Estates Acquisition act) came Into force, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioners to ascertain whether the said endowment was exclusively for religious purpose or not. The said case was initiated under Section 6 (1 (i) of the Estates Acquisition. Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tamluk settlement 'b' Camp, the Respondent No 4. 3. The said case was initiated under Section 6 (1 (i) of the Estates Acquisition. Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Tamluk settlement 'b' Camp, the Respondent No 4. 3. SECTION 6 of the Estates Acquisition Act deals with the right of intermediary to retain certain lands and Clause (i) of sub-section (1) thereof provides as follows : "where the intermediary is a corporation or an institution established exclusively for a religious or a charitable purpose or both, or is a person holding under a trust or an endowment or other legal obligation exclusively for a purpose which is charitable or religious or both land held in khas by such corporation or institution, or person, for such purpose (including land held by any person not being a tenant, by leave or license of such Corporation or institution or person". 4. IN the said proceeding the concerned revenue Officer made all relevant enquiries and received evidence. He found that the entire property had been recorded in the revenue settlement records in the names of the deities as Debutter. He also found that the accounts had been regularly maintained and the entire income of the property was being ultilised exclusively for religious purpose. From the evidence of local people as recorded by the said Revenue Officer, it appears that temples of the deities were open to the public. The Land Revenue officer also took into consideration the decision in Case No. 168 of 1964 in the proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the estates Acquisition Act. Upon consideration of all the relevant facts and materials, the concerned Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that the entire income of the property was being exclusively used for religious purpose and the said Debutter was entitled to the benefit of Section 6 (1) (I) read with first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Estates Acquisition Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the aforesaid findings and determination of the concerned Revenue Officers holding that the lands are Debutfer lands and the endowment in question is exclusively for religious purpose, another Revenue Officer in the proceeding under Section 14 (T) (3) read with Section 14 (M) (5) of the Land Reforms Act, came to a contrary finding and conclusion 'and proceeded to include the deities in the family of the shebait. 5. MR. 5. MR. J. N. Maity, learned Advocate appearing oh behalf of the petitioners has contended that the Revenue Officer acting under Section 140 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act was bound by the Judgment and Order passed in the proceeding under section 6 (1)0) and the proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the Estates Acquisition 'act. It is not in dispute that no appeal has been preferred by the State against the findings of the Revenue Officers under Section 44 (2a) proceeding or against the determination made in Debutter Case under Section 6 (1 (i) of the Estates Acquisition Act. Mr. Maity has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Iswar Saradiya durga Thakurani vs. Revenue Officer and ors. reported in 1981 (1) CLJ 231 and submitted that deities cannot be included in the family of Shebait. 6. MR. Subol Chandra Maitre, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the proceeding under section 6 (1) (i) of the Estates Acquisition act was only to determine whether the benefit of the said Section is admissible to a particular character of the property or not and any finding therein is not binding on the proceeding drawn up under the provision of the Land Reforms Act. It is also his contention that the ceiling provision of the said two Acts are quite independent to each other and as such the principles of res judicata are not applicable to the instant case. He has further submitted that the case under Section 14 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act were disposed of on the examination of all the documents and papers produced by and on behalf of the petitioners and considering the entire facts and circumstances, the lands purported to be retained by the shebait of the deities were held to be owned by the beneficiary. He has also contended that the properties in question are other than public nature and as such the provisions of the Land Reforms act have been properly applied in determining the entitlement of the Shebait acting for the deities. Mr. Maitra has also submitted that the order under Section 14 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act is an appelable Order. Mr. Maitra has also submitted that the order under Section 14 (T) (3) of the Land reforms Act is an appelable Order. It was open to the petitioners who were aggrieved by the impugned orders to move the appellate Authority under the statute, The High court, by entertaining the petition under article 226, should not permit the machinery created by the statute to be bypassed. 7. I am unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Maitra. The existence of an alternative remeby is not an absolute bar to the relief under Article 226. Because an appeal could have been preferred, but was not preferred that would not justify the Court in dismissing as not maintainable the writ petition which was entertained by the Court and Rule was issued and interim order was passed and which is now heard on merits. The existence of an adequate alternative remedy, whether statutory or otherwise, is no bar to relief under Article 226 where absence or excess of jurisdiction is patent and there is an error apparent on the face of the records. Whether the finding and judgment on an identical issue under the estates Acquisition Act are binding on the revenue Officer acting under the Land reforms Act or not is a question relating to jurisdiction and any decision on this point by the Revenue Officer is not final and can be challenged in a writ petition. 8. ONCE a Revenue Officer upon consideration of all relevant materials and evidence has come to a definite finding and conclusion in the proceeding under Section 44 (2a) and Section 6 (1) (i) of the Estates acquisition Act and has granted relief and/ or exemption in pursuance. thereof, unless they are set aside and/or reversed by the appropriate appellate or revisional authority such finding and conclusion are binding on the Revenue Officer deciding a similar issue under the provision of Section 14 (T) of the land Reforms Act. There must be some finality in the Judgments or Orders passed by the Revenue Officers. A Revenue Officer under the Land Reforms Act should not be allowed to come to a contrary finding or conclusion on an identical issue determined earlier by another Revenue Officer under the estates Acquisition Act, unprovoked by any knowledge of any new fact or law coming to him. A Revenue Officer under the Land Reforms Act should not be allowed to come to a contrary finding or conclusion on an identical issue determined earlier by another Revenue Officer under the estates Acquisition Act, unprovoked by any knowledge of any new fact or law coming to him. The Revenue Officer under the land Reforms Act acted without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction in ignoring this said findings and orders rendered by the revenue Officers acting under the Estates acquisition Act. Section 14 (M) (5) of the Land Reforms act provides that the lands owned by a trust or endowment other than of a public nature, shall be deemed to be lands owned by the beneficiary under the trust or endowment and each such beneficiary shall be deemed to be a raiyat under the Land Reforms Act to the extent of the share of his beneficial interest in the said trust or endowment. Here the lands are not owned by the trust or endowment. There has been an absolute Defaulter in favour of the three deities. The deities are the owners of the properties dedicated to them. As held by this Court in the case referred to above, a deity being juridical and/or artificial person is a raiyat within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the land Reforms Act. Clauses (a) to (d) of section 14-M (1) provide for the ceiling area of the raiyat where the raiyat is a natural person and Clause (e) thereof provides for the ceiling area of a juridical person which is also a raiyat within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the Act. Under the deed of Arpannama and/or Gift in question, the properties mentioned therein tied absolutely vested in the deities and the said deities being raiyats within the meaning of section 2 (10) are entitled to retain so much of the land as permissible under Clause (e)of Section 14-M (1). The property which had been dedicated to the deities vest in the deities themselves as juristic persons. The title to the Debutter property is in the idol and not in the shebait, who is not and cannot be a trustee in the sense in which it is used in English Law. The property which had been dedicated to the deities vest in the deities themselves as juristic persons. The title to the Debutter property is in the idol and not in the shebait, who is not and cannot be a trustee in the sense in which it is used in English Law. The shebait only holds the Debutter property for carrying into effect the directions given by the founder in relation to the worship of the idol and management of, the property. In that view of the matter, the three deities are 10 be considered as three independent and different raiyats within the meaning of Land Reforms Act. The shebait, cannot be regarded as a beneficiary or as a trustee as contemplated in Section 14-M (5) en the Land reforms Act. The deities cannot be treated as the members of the family of the shebait. The Revenue Officer under the Land Reforms act acted without jurisdiction in holding that the shebait is a beneficiary of the endowment and the lands owned by the deities shall be deemed to be the lands owned by the shebait and only the shebait shall be deemed to be a raiyat in respect of the entire Debutter as well as the personal property of the shebait in determining the ceiling area. In determining the ceiling area of the shebait, the Debutter property of the deities cannot be added up. 9. IN the premises, the Rule succeeds. The impugned orders of the Revenue Officer are set aside. There will be writ in the nature of Certiorari. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.