Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 97 (CAL)

Prabhangshu Sekhar Maity v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-01-27

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application on merits rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein. From the records, we find that one Smt. Rashomony Nayak was the original owner of the land in question which is now claimed by the petitioner herein. The said Smt. Rashomony transferred the land to one Asit Baran Nayak by executing a deed of gift. The said Sri Asit Baran Nayak thereafter, transferred the land to the writ petitioner herein through a registered sale deed executed on 16th June, 2003. In the meantime, vesting order was passed in respect of the land in question by the State Government. 2. Challenging the said vesting order, Smt. Rashomony, original owner of the land in question along with other two co-sharers filed a Civil Suit in the Additional Court of Munsif at Contai being Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 for declaring the right, title and interest over the said suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. The Title Suit was decided on contest in presence of the learned advocate representing the State of West Bengal and the learned Civil Court decreed the aforesaid Civil Suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the State Government before the Assistant District Judge, Contai being Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Contai. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 5348 (W) of 1997 for issuing appropriate direction to the concerned authority for correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the suit land. 3. The High Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition directed the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. 4. 3. The High Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition directed the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. 4. While considering the said representation for correction of the record-of-rights, most unfortunately the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I again adjudicated the entire matter and arrived at the findings that the plaintiffs had not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land barring possession and thus virtually acted as the appellate authority over the learned Civil Court. 5. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I was under an obligation and duty bound to correct the record-of-rights on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court in Title Suit No. 136 of 1983 since the said judgment and decree reached finality after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the State Government. 6. The Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I most unfortunately violated the specific direction passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 5348 (W) 1997 since the BL&LRO did not consider the claim of the petitioner for correction of the record-of-rights in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order of the BL&LRO, Kanthi-I, an application was filed before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and the said Tribunal also held that the order of the Civil Court has been passed in a matter on which Court's jurisdiction was barred and therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the said BL&LRO, Kanthi-I. 8. We are sorry to say that the elementary principle of law has not been adhered to either by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I or by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in deciding the matter relating to correction of the record of rights in respect of the lands in question. It is well settled that even an erroneous order will have a binding effect on the parties to the proceedings although the same will not have any binding precedence in respect of other matters. 9. It is well settled that even an erroneous order will have a binding effect on the parties to the proceedings although the same will not have any binding precedence in respect of other matters. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr., reported in: AIR 1988 SC 1531 observed- 126. A judgment, inter parties, is final and concludes the parties .... .... .... .... 10. It is not in dispute that a judgment and order is set aside only in appeal or in a review or revision as the case may be. A judgment and decree cannot cease to exist in the eye of law unless the same is set aside by a competent Court of law in an appropriate proceeding. 11. In the case of Janardhan Reddy & Ors. vs. The State of Hyderabad & Ors., reported in AIR 1951 SC 217 , Fazl Ali, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: 26. It is well settled that if a Ct. acts without jurisdiction, its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction, i.e., an appeal would lie to the Ct. to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction....... 12. In the case of Shiv Chander Kapoor vs. Amar Bose, reported in AIR 1990 SC 325 the Supreme Court considered the Wade's Administrative Law and observed as follows: 23. In Wade's Administrative Law, 6th Edn. at pp. 351-353, there is an illuminating discussion of this topic. It has been pointed out that 'void' is meaningless in an absolute sense; and 'unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders'. In the words of Lord Diplock "the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal proceedings by a party entitled to sue. 13. In the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr., reported in /SC/0002/1988 : AIR 1988 S.C. 1531 , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) at page 1577 held - 125........... 13. In the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr., reported in /SC/0002/1988 : AIR 1988 S.C. 1531 , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then was) at page 1577 held - 125........... The authority to decide embodies a privilege to bind despite error, a privilege which is inherent in an indispensable to every judicial function. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act is that it binds whether it be right or it be wrong. 14. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I therefore, had no authority, jurisdiction and/or scope to decide the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court and refuse to act in terms of the said judgment and decree while taking steps to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question. 15. Furthermore, the High Court while deciding the writ petition, being W.P. No. 5348 (W) of 1997, had specifically directed the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner herein for correction of the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question in the light of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I while acting in terms of the aforesaid order of the High Court cannot refuse to act in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. The learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the finality of a judgment and decree passed in a Civil Suit. 16. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal should have held that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter of correcting the record-of-rights in respect of the land in question ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. 17. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no authority to ignore and/or avoid the effect of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court. 18. 17. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no authority to ignore and/or avoid the effect of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by a competent Civil Court. 18. In the present case, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I should have considered the representation of the petitioner for correction of record-of-rights in respect of the land in question in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court pursuant to the specific direction passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5348 (W) of 1997. The said Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I had no scope, authority and/or jurisdiction to adjudicate the right, title and interest of any party in respect of the land in question since the same was finally decided by a competent Civil Court and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 was not only final but binding on the State since the State government was party to the said suit which was decreed on contest. 19. Since the competent Civil Court had declared the right, title and interest over the lands in question upon deciding the Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 which was affirmed by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned had no other option but to correct the record-of-rights in terms of the said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court without making any endeavour to adjudicate any other issue in this regard. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I on 23rd April, 2003 as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 3359 of 2003 on 13th December, 2007 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are accordingly set aside. 21. The respondent authorities have illegally granted patta in respect of the land in question ignoring the effect of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. Therefore, the patta granted by the respondent authorities in favour of the private respondents also cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly, cancelled. 22. 21. The respondent authorities have illegally granted patta in respect of the land in question ignoring the effect of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983. Therefore, the patta granted by the respondent authorities in favour of the private respondents also cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly, cancelled. 22. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kanthi-I is directed to correct the record-of-rights in respect of the lands in question strictly in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 135 of 1983 without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 23. This application thus stands allowed. 24. In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible. Application allowed