Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and order dated February 01, 2013 passed in Original Application no.1842 of 2008 by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee- III, Additional Government Pleader, accepts the notice of this writ petition on behalf of all the respondents. The disputed property originally belonged to Shri Nilpadmeswar and Shri Nakuleswar Sib Thakur. Manindranath Ghosh was the shebait of the deities. Manindranath Ghosh sometime in 1960 settled 3.21 acres of land to one Jagat Pati Mathur, since deceased. After the death of Manindranath Ghosh, the heirs and legal representatives of Manindranath Ghosh executed a registered deed of lease in favour of Jagat Pati Mathur, since deceased. The State claimed that the said 3.21 acres of land stood vested in the State and the State took possession of the land. Jagat Pati Mathur instituted Title Suit no. 142 of 1976 before a competent Civil Court. By judgment and decree dated June 29, 1983 the learned Munsif, First Court, Burdwan decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff, namely, Jagat Pati Mathur. The right, title, interest and possession of the said plaintiff was declared in relation to the suit properties. The defendants, including the State, were restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from disturbing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises. The State of West Bengal preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.191 of 1983 before the learned District Judge, Burdwan. Eventually, the appeal was transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Burdwan. The learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Burdwan, dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree passed by the trial court. The State preferred a second appeal before this Court, which was registered as S.A. 838 of 1990. Although the appeal was admitted for hearing under Order XLI, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, due to failure on the part the appellant to secure compliance with the office report dated March 7, 1997, the appeal was dismissed in Lawazima on July 25, 1997. The heirs and legal representatives of the said Jagat Pati Mathur approached the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned for correction of record of rights on the strength of the decree of the Civil Court. The heirs and legal representatives of the said Jagat Pati Mathur approached the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned for correction of record of rights on the strength of the decree of the Civil Court. The said Block Land and Land Reforms Officer rejected the prayer of those petitioners. An appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order of dismissal the petitioners approached the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement and order dismissed the original application holding, inter alia, that under section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, the civil court was not competent to entertain any suit challenging an order of vesting. The point is no longer res integra. The suit for declaration of title is certainly maintainable before the Civil Court. In Sudharani Maity and others –Versus-State of West Bengal and others, reported in 2003(1) CHN 1 a Division Bench of this Court observed that the said Tribunal has no jurisdiction to nullify the effects of the decree passed by the competent civil court. It was, further, observed that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the decree of the civil court, affirmed in appeal, was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree was void and not binding on the state authorities. The State of West Bengal was a party to the suit. The findings are not only binding on the state authorities but it, also, operate as res judicata. It is unconscionable to think that, in view of the bar imposed under section 57B of the said Act, a contested decree passed by a civil court, in presence of the State of West Bengal, could be treated as a nullity. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader, relies upon a decision in the case of Kiran Singh and others –Vs.- Chaman Paswan and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 . The reliance placed in the said decision is misplaced. It was a case when the decree was passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction. In the case in hand it was a suit for declaration of title. The principle issue was question of title. The reliance placed in the said decision is misplaced. It was a case when the decree was passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction. In the case in hand it was a suit for declaration of title. The principle issue was question of title. In Ayubali Sardar and another –versus-Derajuddin Mallick and others reported in 1975(2) CLJ 305 a division bench of this court held that notwithstanding an entry adverse to the plaintiff’s claim, a suit for declaration of title based on an independent cause of action is maintainable in law and nothing prevents a correction of the erroneous entry in the relevant record-of-rights. Further, it was observed that a question or dispute, which did not at all fall for determination for the purpose of preparation or revision of the record-of-rights would not come within the purview of Section 57B of the said Act and, consequently, the entertaining a civil suit for determination of such a dispute or question was not barred nor was it so intended. In Jharna Ghosal-Versus-Satyendra Prosad Dhar reported in 1978 (1) CLJ 193 another division bench of this Court held that Section 57B of the said Act did not either expressly or by necessary implication exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions of title The Incidental prayer for declaration that their record-of-rights was wrong did not bring the suit within the mischief of Section 57B of the said Act. We hold that it was not fair on the part of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to ignore a decree passed by a competent civil court when the State of West Bengal was a party in such suit. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to nullify the effect of a contested decree passed in a civil suit when the State was one of the contesting parties. Section 57B of the said Act merely oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain certain classes of suit, but it does not debar the civil court from entertaining suits not relating to matters not specified in Subsection (1) as well as clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 57B of the said Act. Section 57B of the said Act merely oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain certain classes of suit, but it does not debar the civil court from entertaining suits not relating to matters not specified in Subsection (1) as well as clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 57B of the said Act. When in a suit the principle issue is question of title, a prayer for declaration that record-of-rights is wrong does not bring the suit within the mischief of Section 57B of the said Act. Hence the approach of the authorities were erroneous. They exceeded their jurisdiction in refusing to correct the record-of-rights on the basis of the decree of the civil court, as aforesaid. Record-of-rights is not a document of title and it must yield to a decree of civil court. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed and we command the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned to correct the record-of-rights in terms of the decree passed by the civil court, as aforesaid. The parties shall bear their respective costs in the writ petition. (Subhro Kamal I agree.