JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioners. Learned counsel, Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta) appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that she had been engaged by the respondents to conduct the case but the case file is not with her and that she has no contact with the respondents so long and therefore, not in a position to argue the case since she has no instruction from the respondents. 2. The writ petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In course of his submission learned counsel, Mr. Biswas prayed for treating it as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such prayer of learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has been allowed. 3. The petitioners, inter alia, contended that they are legal heirs and successors of Barindra Nath who was the owner in possession of the land recorded in Khatian No. 1677, Plot No. 1742 and 1744 of Mouja Churaibari. The land was allotted in the name of Barindra Nath measuring 1.75 acres and during his life time Barinidra Nath was in occupation of the land and thereafter the petitioners being the legal heirs stepped to the shoes of Barindra Nath. The respondents, while started disturbing the possession of the petitioners in different manner, in the year 2006, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 01 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar praying for perpetual injunction against the respondents from entering into and/or disturbing right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners in the suit land and in that suit respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeared and submitted written statement and contested the suit. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No. 1 and though respondent No. 4 was not a party in that suit but pleadings was raised in the name of respondent No. 4 also in the title suit. Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and restrained the respondents from entering into and/or disturbing the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land recorded in Khatian No. 1677 and other lands described in the suit. Learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and restrained the respondents from entering into and/or disturbing the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land recorded in Khatian No. 1677 and other lands described in the suit. The respondents thereafter in collusion, filed a petition under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (for short, TLR and LR Act) in the name of the respondent No. 4, against the petitioners, praying for correction of the record of rights alleging that a portion of the suit land has been occupied by respondent No. 4. That petition under Section 95 of the TLR and LR Act was registered as Revision Case No. 60/2006 in the Court of District Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar and the petitioners on their appearance before the District Collector submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court and contended that the Civil Court already decided the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land and so the Revenue Court should not take up the issue afresh in view of the decree of the Civil Court already in force in respect of that land. But the District Collector defying the submission of the petitioners, passed order dated 24.03.2007, directing SDM, Dharmanagar to cause an inquiry in respect of physical status of the land and to arrange for recording unutilized and unoccupied land in the khas khatian and re-allot the same to the person who has been actually occupying it if he/she is a landless person. Having felt aggrieved with the order, the petitioners preferred this Revisional application under 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents filed a written objection, inter alia, stating that in the title suit instituted by the petitioners, respondent No. 4 was not a party and so the decree is not binding on respondent No. 4. Having felt aggrieved with the order, the petitioners preferred this Revisional application under 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Respondents filed a written objection, inter alia, stating that in the title suit instituted by the petitioners, respondent No. 4 was not a party and so the decree is not binding on respondent No. 4. It is the contention of the respondents that a part of the suit land i.e. allotted land of Barindra Nath was never occupied by Barindra Nath or his successors and that the land had been under occupation of the respondent No. 4 Smt. Sindhu Bala Nath, D/o Pulin Bihari Nath (respondent No. 1) and therefore, respondent No. 4 rightly approached the Collector of the District for correction of the record of rights and accordingly, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 24.03.2007 directing SDM, Dharmanagar to enquire about the physical status of the land and to re-allot the same. The order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and hence this Court may not interfere in the order. It is also contended by the respondents that the order is interlocutory in nature and hence, the present revisional application challenging that order is not maintainable. 5. Only question involved to be decided is-- Whether a Revenue Court in its jurisdiction can pass an order in respect of right, title, interest and possession of a plot of land while a competent civil Court already decided the issue and passed a decree. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.03.2007 passed by the District Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Revision Case No. 60/2006, under Section 95 of TLR and LR Act is absolutely without jurisdiction of the Collector since the Collector having knowledge of the fact that a competent Civil Court already dealt with the matter, entertained the revisional application in respect of the record of right and passed order directing SDM to re-enquire the matter and to re-allot the land. The order suffers from lack of jurisdiction and the Collector thereby committed a serious error of law and hence it is liable to be set aside and quashed at the threshold 7. Copy of the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge in T.S. 01 of 2006 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The order suffers from lack of jurisdiction and the Collector thereby committed a serious error of law and hence it is liable to be set aside and quashed at the threshold 7. Copy of the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge in T.S. 01 of 2006 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Copy of the impugned order passed by the Collector in Revision Case No. 60 of 2006 is annexed as Annexure-3. It is an undisputed fact that land recorded in Khatian No. 1677, Plot No. 1742 and 1744 was allotted in the name of Barindra Nath, the predecessor of the petitioners and that land was a subject matter of title suit No. 1 of 2006. It is clearly brought on record that T.S. 01 of 2006 was decreed on 26.09.2006 and revisional case No. 60 of 2006 under Section 95 of TLR and LR Act was disposed of on 24.03.2007 i.e. subsequent to the disposal of the title suit. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas referring to the records of the Revenue Court submitted that a copy of the judgment of title suit was also placed by the petitioners before the Collector when the matter was heard by the Collector and on perusal of the records of revenue case, I find that copy of the Khatian No. 1677 in the name of Barindra Nath and a copy of the judgment of the title suit was placed before the Collector at the time of hearing of the revision case under TLR and LR Act. 8. We may quote here the order dated 24.03.2007 passed by the District Collector in the revisional case which reads as follows:- ORDER 24.03.2007 Petitioner Smt. Sindhu Nath, W/O. Arun Nath of Fulbari appeared in person. OP, Sri Subhash Nath, S/O. Sri Barindra Nath also appeared in person. Sri Manik Lal Nath, Ld. Advocate of the petitioner and Sri Surendra Sutradhar, Ld. Advocate of the OP were present in the Court at the time of hearing. The particulars of the disputed land is as below. Mouja Churaibari, Khatian-1676/1677, plot No. 735/1,735/2, quantum of land-1.75 acres. At the time of hearing 1st Party and the Ld. Lawyer of the 1st Party stated that the petitioner is a widow and is not having any other landed property except the disputed land. She has been residing in the disputed land for the last 25 years. Mouja Churaibari, Khatian-1676/1677, plot No. 735/1,735/2, quantum of land-1.75 acres. At the time of hearing 1st Party and the Ld. Lawyer of the 1st Party stated that the petitioner is a widow and is not having any other landed property except the disputed land. She has been residing in the disputed land for the last 25 years. The OP is her cousin. Though the land is in her possession but the said has been recorded in the name of OP who does not reside in the plot rather he has been residing at the adjacent plot. The petitioner, therefore has prayed for correction of ROR in her name. The OP through his Ld. Lawyer stated that the land was recorded in favour of the father of the OP for which a civil case was also filed in the Civil Judge Court, Dharmanagar and the case was decreed in favour of the OP. The case was enquired into by SDWO, Dharmanagar. According to his report the disputed land was initially allotted in favour of Sri Barindra Nath, F/O Subhas Nath, during Re-settlement operation vide khatian No. 1677. But after the expiry of original allottee legal heir namely Sri Subhash Nath and other Ops have been possessing only 0.3 acre of lunga land under CS Plot No. 1742 out of total 1.75 acres of allotted land and rest 1.45 acres of land in CS plot No. 1744 was not under their possession. The SDWO also stated that during enquiry local people informed him that Smti. Sindhu Bala Nath has been possessing the balance area of 1.45 acres of land under CS Plot No. 1744 and utilizing the land for horticultural purpose. It was also informed by the Inquiry Officer that at the time of field enquiry it was informed to him that the case u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. was also instituted in respect of the disputed land. On examining of oral statement adduced and enquiry report of the Revenue Officer, it appears that dispute is in respect of plot of land which was earlier allotted to Lt. Barindra Nath. It also appears that disputed plot is not being occupied by any of the party permanently. The petitioner however has been utilizing a portion of the area for the purpose of horticulture. Therefore, it is a case for violation of allotment rule. Barindra Nath. It also appears that disputed plot is not being occupied by any of the party permanently. The petitioner however has been utilizing a portion of the area for the purpose of horticulture. Therefore, it is a case for violation of allotment rule. It is therefore ordered that SDM, Dharmanagar may cause enquiry of the physical status of the land and arrange for recording unutilized and unoccupied land in the khas khatian and re-allot the same to the person, who has been actually occupying it if he/she is a landless person. 9. A bare reading of the above order makes it abundantly clear that the learned District Collector was well aware about the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Dharmanagar in respect of the subject matter for which the revisional case was pending before him and he was dealing with. 10. Let us now have a glimpse to the case of the plaintiffs and respondents in T.S. 01 of 2006. It is necessary to look into the pleadings of the parties to arrive at a conclusion that all the respondents were well conscious about the factual position of the civil suit including that of the respondent No. 4. 11. In Para 2 of the judgment, the learned Civil Judge narrated the pleadings of the plaintiffs i.e. the present petitioners which reads thus:- 2. The brief history of the case, filed by the plaintiffs are in short is that, the suit land as described in the schedule below was originally owned and possessed the predecessor father of the plaintiffs and the suit land along with other lands were recorded in his name in khatian bearing No. 7035/1 and 7035/2, 1676 and 1677 of Mouja and Tahasil-Churaibari. The predecessor of the plaintiffs Barindra Nath expired on 24.12.2000 and the predecessor mother of the plaintiffs expired on 10.10.2000 prior to the death of their father. The plaintiffs have been possessing the suit land since the time of their father by different acts of possession. Thereafter after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have become the lawful owner and possessor of the land as described in the schedule herein below along with other lands. The plaintiffs have been possessing the suit land since the time of their father by different acts of possession. Thereafter after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have become the lawful owner and possessor of the land as described in the schedule herein below along with other lands. The plaintiffs No. 2,3 and 4 are the sister of plaintiff No. 1 and they are married so the plaintiff No. 1 is looking after all the properties including the suit land left by their predecessor father. The defendant No. 1 Pulin Behari Nath is the uncle of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of the defendant No. 1. The defendants without having any right, title, interest on 18.7.03 forcefully tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint by breaking the bamboo fencing of the western boundary of A schedule land and northern boundaries of B, C and D schedule land. But they became unsuccessful in their venture due to strong resistance caused by the plaintiffs. But they threatened to occupy the suit land soon by force. The matter was reported to village elders but no action was taken and O.C. CRB PS was informed and on the basis of report of O.C., CRB P.S. a proceeding u/s. 145 of Cr.P.C. was drawn up and accordingly the case has been pending in the court of SDM, Dharmanagar. The defendants again on 25.9.05 forcefully tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for granting a decree of permanent injunction. 12. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the defendants in the title suit and the pleadings of the respondents recorded by the learned Civil Judge reads thus:- The defendants have contested this suit by filing one written statement denying the assertions of the plaintiffs in the plaint. Rather the defendants took the plea that the answering defendant No. 1 and his daughter Sindhubala Nath have been owning and possessing the land measuring 1.45 acres under CS Plot No. 1744 of Khatian No. 1675 since long, which is a khas land. Said Sindu Bala Nath has been possessing the aforesaid quantum of land by raising dwelling hut since last 30 years and prior to that it was under the possession of defendant No. 1. Said Sindu Bala Nath has been possessing the aforesaid quantum of land by raising dwelling hut since last 30 years and prior to that it was under the possession of defendant No. 1. But on 24.7.98 the plaintiff No. 1 told that it is the allotted land of his father and accordingly the answering defendant enquired about the matter and could know the said land has been arbitrarily allotted in favour of Barindra Nath (since dead). Hence, finding no alternative the defendant No. 1 and daughter sought redress to the Court of Ld. District Collector, North u/s. 95 of TLR and LR Act,1960 for correction of record of rights as because said Barindra Nath according to answering defendant did never possess the said land measuring 1.45 acres. Accordingly Ld. District Collector, asked the SDO, Dharmanagar to enquire the matter and to file the report but no action was taken so said Sindubala Nath again filed another petition under Rule 12 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1980 which is subjudiced. But the answering defendants by their WS admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of land as mentioned in schedule B, C and D of the plaint. Hence, the defendants by their WS prayed for dismissal of this suit with costs. 13. Learned Civil Judge formulated 4 (four) issues and after taking evidence decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners and disposed of the suit directing thus:- In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby decreed on contest with costs against the defendants. The defendants, their men and agents are hereby restrained from entering into the suit land as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and also they are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit land otherwise then in due course of law. With the aforesaid observation the suit is hereby decreed on contest. Announced. 14. It is a settled position of law that while a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction decided an issue in respect of right, title, interest and possession of any property, the Revenue Court are bound by such judgment of the competent Civil Court so long the judgment stands good. The Revenue Courts or other tribunals should not entertain any proceeding before it regarding the subject matter which has already been decided by the competent Civil Court. 15. The Revenue Courts or other tribunals should not entertain any proceeding before it regarding the subject matter which has already been decided by the competent Civil Court. 15. It is abundantly clear that the land of Khatian No. 1677 was a subject matter of the civil suit and while a competent civil Court decided the right, title, interest and possession of the land of Khatian No. 1677 of Mouja Churaibari, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain a revisional application in respect of that land to decide right, title, interest and possession of that land afresh and to pass an order as stated hereinbefore. It is also abundantly clear that the District Collector committed a serious error in law and acted beyond his jurisdiction while entertaining the revisional application and hence, the impugned order dated 24.03.2007, passed by the District Collector, in revisional case No. 60/2006, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 24.03.2007, passed by the District Collector, North Tripura, in Revenue Revision Case No. 60 of 2006 is quashed. 17. The Revision petition accordingly stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.