A. K. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) IMPORTANT legal question that has been raised and this Court is called upon to answer in this second appeal is whether the Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts as contemplated in 14x of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, puts a blanket prohibition to decide questions of title in a spit by an aggrieved person who was neither a party to a proceeding under Chapter II-B of the said Act, nor whose rights were determined in such proceeding by the authorities specified thererin ( 2 ) TO have a proper appraisal of the point of law, it is necessary to narrate the case of the plaintiff-appellants in brief as follows: According to the plaintiffs, the property in suit as described in Schedule "a" of the plaint, was wrongly and illegally declared to have vested in the State Government on the basis of a proceeding No. "74/171 of 1977" under Section 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, thereafter to be referred to as the Act against Saila Bala Chatterjee, widow of late Taranath Chatterjee. The said Saila Bala Chatterjee was shown to be a big raiyat hiring lands in excess of the ceiling as recorded in the R. S. record-of-rights. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the authority in question came to a finding regarding the computation of the ceiling area of Saila Bala Chatterjee, on the basis of erroneous entries in the record-of-rights, regarding the properties mentioned in Schedules "c" and "d" of the plaint, showing Saila Bala Chatterjee to have 1/7th share in such lands. Allegedly, the said Saila Bala Chatterjee had no manner of right, title and interest in the lands of those two Schedules as because the properties in Schedule "c" were purchased by a registered sale deed dated 15. 101949, from one Kamala Bala Debi wife of late Sushil Chakra5orty, by Shri Sudhir Chatterjee, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and his five other brothers, the pro-defendants, who are the sons of late Taranath Chatterjee. 101949, from one Kamala Bala Debi wife of late Sushil Chakra5orty, by Shri Sudhir Chatterjee, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and his five other brothers, the pro-defendants, who are the sons of late Taranath Chatterjee. With regard to the property in "d" Schedule, it was asserted that the said lands belonged to Taranath Chatterjee who died in 1935, that is, long before the present Hindu Succession Act came into force, leaving his six sons including the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as his only heirs and the widow Saila Bala Chatterjee thereby did not inherit anything in such property though wrongly recorded in the record-of-rights to have 1/7th share in the same. It was, therefore, urged that such erroneously recorded shares of Saila Bala, Chatterjee in "c" and "d" Schedule lands been excluded for the purpose of computation of the ceding area of Saila Bala Chatterjee then the lands of "a" Schedule would not have vested in the State and the ceiling limit of Saila Bala Chatterjee as shown in Schedule "b" would have come dowry to 8. 24 acres, a permissible limit within Section 14-M of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs therefore claimed for a declaration of their title to 1/6th share in "a" Schedule lands and for further declarations that the entries in the record-of-rights are wrong and that "a" Schedule lands, cannot and have not vested in the state. ( 3 ) THE State of West Bengal contested the suit by filing a written statement contending inter alia that Saila Bala Chatterjee, widow of Taranath Chatterjee was a be landholder having lands more than the prescribed family ceiling for which a proceeding under Sections 14-M and 14-T of the said Act was started against her and as because she did not file any return in 7a Form, for retention of her surplus lands as mentioned in Schedule "a" of the plaint and some other land the same accordingly vested to the State after contested hearing. ( 4 ) THE learned, trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the proceeding under Sections 14-M and 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was illegal and that the plaintiffs had right title and interest in the suit lands and thereby decreed the suit. ( 4 ) THE learned, trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the proceeding under Sections 14-M and 14t of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was illegal and that the plaintiffs had right title and interest in the suit lands and thereby decreed the suit. ( 5 ) THE learned Court of appeal reversed the finding of the trial court on consideration of the only point that was urged before it with its finding that the provision of Section 14x of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court altogether, to question the order based on such proceeding; ( 6 ) SUCH decision and finding of the appellate court has been assailed before this Court on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants contending that the plaintiffs' right and interest remain unaffected in the suit property inspite of the order passed by the Revenue Officer in the aforesaid proceeding and that they have every right to agitate the question of their title by an independent suit in Civil Court based on independent cause of action. So, we are left with the only question whether Section 14x of the Land Reforms Act puts a blanket prohibition, expressly or by necessary implication, excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the question of title of an aggrieved person who was not a party to the proceeding under Chapter II-B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. ( 7 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the Revenue Authority started a proceeding being Case No. 74/171 (R-II) of 1977, under Section 14-D of Chapter II-B against Saila Bala Chatterjee, wife of late 'taranath Chatterjee and passed an order holding that the property mentioned in Schedule "a" of the plaint was the surplus land or land in excess of the ceiling area of the raiyat Saila Bala Chatterjee. Undoubtedly, such revenue authority came to such finding holding such land to have vested in the State, as the excess land, on the basis of the record-of-rights showing that Saila Bala Chatterjee had her share in the lands of Schedules "c" and "d" of the plaint. Undoubtedly, such revenue authority came to such finding holding such land to have vested in the State, as the excess land, on the basis of the record-of-rights showing that Saila Bala Chatterjee had her share in the lands of Schedules "c" and "d" of the plaint. In other words, in computing the ceiling area of Saila Bala Chatterjee and extent of land which was to vest in the State, such authority took into account the share of Saila Bala Chatterjee as recorded in the record-of-rights id respect of "c' and "d" Schedule lands. The plaintiff-appellants have challenged this finding exactly on this paint maintaining that as a matter of fact Saila Bala Chatterjee did not and could not have any right title or interest in the property of Schedules "c" and "d" of the plant. It is not seriously disputed and as a matter of fact it is established by evidence on record that Taranath Chatterjee, husband of Saila Bala Chatterjee died in 1935, leaving behind his six sons, who inherited the properties left by him. As such, Saila Bala Chatterjee could not be an heir to have any share in such properties mentioned in Schedule "d", of the plaint, For similar good reasons she could not be a co-sharer owner of the property in Schedule "c", as because such property was purchased by the sons of late Taranath Chatterjee including the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs by a registered. said deed, Exbt. 4, dated 15. 10. 1949 from one Kamala Bala Debi. It has, thererfore, been urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that if the interest of Saila Bala Chatterjee as erroneously recorded in the lands of Schedules "c" and "d" are excluded for computation of her ceiling limit, then, it would be much less than what has been accepted and mentioned by the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under Section 14-M. In short, the area of such lands would be within the prescribed ceiling limit provided in the Act itself. There is no good answer to such question raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants. As a matter of fact, such state of affairs seems to be unassailable. If that be so, Saila Bala Chatterjee would not have any lands beyond the prescribed ceiling and the order passed by the Revenue Officer based on the erroneous record-of-rights would be palpably wrong. There is no good answer to such question raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants. As a matter of fact, such state of affairs seems to be unassailable. If that be so, Saila Bala Chatterjee would not have any lands beyond the prescribed ceiling and the order passed by the Revenue Officer based on the erroneous record-of-rights would be palpably wrong. ( 8 ) THE next matter for consideration is even if it appears to be wrong on the fact of it, can the order of the Revenue Officer be questioned the Civil Court by a person aggrieved, who was not a party to the proceeding under Chapter II-B of the. Act. No doubt, under Sub-section 3 (a) of Section 14t of the said Act, Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on an application being made to him revise an order under Sub-section 3 of the said section and determine afresh the extent of land which is to vest in the State under Section 14s and take possession of such land. ( 9 ) SECTION 147, no doubt, provides for re-hearing on the matters under the circumstances as stated, by the Revenue Officer, but on a plain reading of the language of Section 14t, it so appears that this can be done by a raiyat who is proceeded against and not by a person who is not, though aggrieved otherwise by the same. The question naturally will arise can a person aggrieved, though not proceeded against, can have any remedy in the court of law. In other words, in computing the ceding area of a raiyat proceeded against, under Sections 14m,14s and 14t, if serious questions of title relating to succession, inheritance arise and they are not determined or decided by the Revenue Officer then can the aggrieved person, who is not a party to the proceeding, be without any remedy or can have such remedy in the court of law. The provisions of Section 14x cannot be taken to be that wide (so as) to render such persons aggrieved, whose right to property and legal status might have been affected by such an order based under Section 14t of the Act, to be without any other remedy. The provisions of Section 14x cannot be taken to be that wide (so as) to render such persons aggrieved, whose right to property and legal status might have been affected by such an order based under Section 14t of the Act, to be without any other remedy. ( 10 ) THE learned appellate court has referred to the ruling reported in 82 C. W. N. page 118, in support of his contention regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of the evil Court as contemplated under Section 14x of the Act. In fact, it will be reading too much to hold that the aforesaid decision laid down such a broad proposition of law that Civil Court has no jurisdiction under any circumstances to entertain or decide a case involving complicated questions of title relating to succession, inheritance, coparcenery and partition etc. The aforesaid decision was made in a writ petition under Article 226, and if was held that no appeal having been preferred by the party to the proceeding as prescribed under Section 54 of the Act, against an order under Section 14t (3), such writ petition against such order was not maintainable at all. The question that arose in that case is whether an appeal can be preferred under Section 54 of the said Act against an order of Revenue Officer under Section 14t, where no special provision for appeal has been laid down under the Act. It was held that Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, has created a substantive right of appeal and consequently. It was held that Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, has created a substantive right of appeal and consequently. an appeal lies against an order made under Section 14t (3) of the said Act As already stated, this decision therefore cannot be taken to be an authority for the broad proposition of law that the provision of Section 14x excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, even in a case, where complicated question of title arises on an independent cause of action with regard to the right of a person adversely affected, though not a party to a proceeding under Chapter II-B of the said Act On the other hand, if any authority is needed against such a rigid interpretation of 14x excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of the case evolving a question of title, then reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Court, reported to 82 C W N. page 335. In that case, inspite of similar such a provision regards abatement of a suit as laid down under Section 57b of the Estate Acquisition Act, it was held by their Lordship that such provision either expressly or by necessary implication does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title. In coming to such decision their Lordships referred to and relied upon another Bench decision of this Court to that effect in Ayubali Sardar and Another vs. Derajuddin Mallick and Ors. reported in 1975 (2) CLJ, page 305. Agreeing most respectfully with the observations made by their Lordships in the aforesaid Division Bench decisions. I am inclined to hold that it would not be inconsonance with the principles of justice to give such a rigid interpretation of Section 14x of the Act and further that a case involving serious question, of title cannot be entertained at all in a court of law where it is said to have affected adversely the right of a person by an order in a proceeding under Chapter II-B of the Act even though such person is not a party to the proceeding. ( 11 ) AS already stated, the plaintiffs were not parties to the proceeding under Sections 14m, 14t and 14s of the proceeding brought against Saila Bala Chatterjee. ( 11 ) AS already stated, the plaintiffs were not parties to the proceeding under Sections 14m, 14t and 14s of the proceeding brought against Saila Bala Chatterjee. But no doubt their rights in the suit property have been affected by the result of such proceeding. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to argue that they cannot have any other forum to ventilate their grievance when the rights to the suit property have been affected seriously by the result of such proceeding, though they were not parties to such proceeding, It would sound too ample as the learned appellate court observed that as because the proceeding was started against Saila Bala Chatterjee who was served with a notice and was represented by an agent who contested her case on her behalf and as such the proceeding was fully unconformity with the principles of judicial procedure and that there was nothing wrong for the Revenue Officer to act on the basis of the record-of-rights which was standing in her name. The very basis of the record-of-rights on which the revenue authority acted has been called into question and it has been proved that the same was erroneous. As such, there is no doubt that the Revenue Officer acted in a wrong way in depending on such erroneous record-of-rights vitally affecting the rights and interest of the plaintiffs. In view of what has been stated above, I hold that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their case and that the suit is perfectly maintainable. ( 12 ) THE result is the appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree of the appellate court are hereby set aside and that of the trial court are restored. ( 13 ) NO order is made as to costs. Appeal allowed.