JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners in this application have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief's:- "(a) A writ or order or orders and/or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, their agents, subordinates to correct the record of right in favour of petitioners on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Diamond Harbour on 16.4.82 in Title Suit No.133 of 1973 and also to consider the application of petitioners (Annexure-C) and also directing the respondents not to give any effect and/or furl her effect of the impugned order of vesting and also not to settle the lands to others." 2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. The lands in question belonged to Bapuli Brothers. By reason of 3 registered deeds of sale dated 5.8.92, 4.2.93 and 4.2 93 the petitioners have purchased the lands described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, as the private respondent No.14 intended to disturb the possession on the basis of a pattah stating that the land is vested; the petitioners enquired into the matter and came to learn that the vendors of the petitioners filed a suit in the Court of 1st Munsif, Diamond Harbour, which was marked as Title Suit No.133 of 1973. In the said suit, the vendors of the petitioners, inter alia, sought for a declaration of their right title and interest as also possession. By a judgment and decree dated 16.4.82, the learned Munsif, Diamond Harbour decreed the aforementioned suit and held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had right, title and interest in relation to the said lands. No appeal had been preferred as against the said judgment by the State of West Bengal. Despite the fact that the State of West Bengal was bound by the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court, it now transpires that the authorities of the revenue department granted a pattah in favour of the respondent No.14 on 20.8.94 which is contained in Annexure 'E' to the affidavit-in-opposition. 4. Mr. Mondal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that keeping in view the fact that a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, State of West Bengal had no right or authority to execute the said pattah. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Mondal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that keeping in view the fact that a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, State of West Bengal had no right or authority to execute the said pattah. 5. Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondent No.14, on the other hand, submits that his client had been in possession of the lands in question for a period of more than 30 years. The submission of Mr. Banerjee cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The respondent No.14 is claiming right under a derivative title. If the order of vesting passed by the State of West Bengal as against the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was the subject matter of decision in the aforementioned Title Suit No.133 of 1973, as the respondent No.4 is claiming, under the State of West Bengal is also bound by the said decree. The respondent No. 14 having derived his title from the Slate cannot claim any higher right. It alto does not lie in the mouth of the respondent No.14 to contend that he has been in possession of the lands in question for a period of more than 30 years. If the said respondent had already acquired title by reason of adverse possession question of obtaining any pattah from the State of West Bengal did not arise. The very fact that the respondent No.14 obtained a pattah from the Stale goes to show that he never claimed any Independent right, title and interest in respect of the plot in question. Furthermore, the respondent No.14 cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, inasmuch as, he cannot be permitted to contend on the one hand that the lands in question stood vested in the State and thus accepting the ownership of the State of West Bengal and then turn around and contend that he had acquired an Independent 1itleas against the petitioners predecessor-in-interest. The fact of the matter clearly shows that the initial right, title and interest of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest were neither in doubt nor in dispute. Had the petitioners' predecessor-in-interests were not the owners of the hinds in question, the question of the said lands being directed to be vested in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, would not have arisen. Had the petitioners' predecessor-in-interests were not the owners of the hinds in question, the question of the said lands being directed to be vested in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, would not have arisen. The purported order of vesting has lost its force with the coming of the decree passed in the aforementioned Title Suit No.133 of 1973 and consequently, it must be held that the purported raiyati pattah granted by the other respondents in favour of the respondent No.14 on 20.8.94 is invalid in law, and thereby the said respondent has not derived any right, title and interest. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that it is the duty of the State to restore back possession to the petitioners in order to uphold the rule of law and correct the record of rights, inasmuch as, the State and its Officers cannot take advantage of their own wrong. If they have delivered possession to the respondent No.14 under se-me misconception that the lands have vested, they should evict the respondent No.14 also so as to uphold the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court as also for the purpose of upholding rule of law. In that view of the matter, in the event the said respondent No.14 is in possession of the properties in question, the State and its Officers must see to it that such possession is delivered back to the petitioners, and in the ever of the petitioners ere in possession thereof, they should see to it that the petitioners possession is not disturbed. This application is allowed with the aforementioned directions. However, as the State has not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs.