Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 494 (CAL)

Aswini Kumar Raut v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-09

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging an order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O, Contai-III, Purba Medinipur on 18th March, 2013/2nd April, 2013 in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2012 whereby the petitioner’s prayer for correction of record of rights in the light of the judgement and decree passed by the Learned Munsif, Additional Court at Contai on 28th June, 1969 in Title Suit No. 114 of 1969, was rejected. Mr. De, Learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition before this court in view of the provisions contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act which excludes the jurisdiction of this Court from entertaining any application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of any order passed by any authority under the specified Acts directly without approaching the Tribunal created under the said Act. It is no doubt true that the order passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O is appealable under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the order which may be passed by the Appellate Authority in the said appeal, is assailable before the Tribunal and the aggrieved party may challenge the said order of the Learned Tribunal before this Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar -vs- Union of India reported in 1997(2) SCR page 1186. But here is the case, where we find that no fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the parties to the Appellate forum by directing the aggrieved party to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Reforms Act before the Appellate Authority for challenging the order of the concerned B.L. & L.R.O as we find that the title of the petitioner’s vendor viz. Gunadhar in respect of the land comprising in Dag No. 26/253 within the concerned Mouza was declared by the Civil Court vide Decree dated 28th June, 1969 passed by the Learned Additional Munsif of Contai in Title Suit No. 114 of 1969. Gunadhar in respect of the land comprising in Dag No. 26/253 within the concerned Mouza was declared by the Civil Court vide Decree dated 28th June, 1969 passed by the Learned Additional Munsif of Contai in Title Suit No. 114 of 1969. Incidentally it may be mentioned herein that the State Government was a party in the said suit and the order of vesting under the Estate Acquisition Act was an issue in the said suit and the Learned Trial Judge held that the big raiyat’s tittle in respect of the disputed property was not affected by the said order of vesting and the said big raiyat validly transferred her right, title and interest in the said land in favour of the petitioner’s vendor vide sale deed dated 18th October, 1965. The Learned Trial Judge thus, not only declared the petitioner’s vendor’s title in respect of the said plot of land but also permanently restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s vendor in the said land. The State Government did not challenge the said judgement and decree by filing any appeal. The State Government accepted the said judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court which attains its finality. As such, the State Government cannot take stand contrary to the judgement and decree passed in the said suit. Since we find that the Civil Court has already declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff’s vendor in the said land in question, the petitioner’s prayer for correction of record of rights as a purchaser of the said land from the said decree holder in the light of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court in the said suit as aforesaid, cannot be denied. Since the dispute with regard to vesting of the big raiyat’s interest in the land in question was set at rest by the Civil Court, we feel that no useful purpose will be served by relegating the parties to the Appellate Forum for challenging the impugned order passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. As such, instead of relegating the parties to the Appellate Forum, we entertain this writ petition and dispose of the same by directing the concerned B.L. & L.R.O to correct the record of rights in the light of the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court as aforesaid in respect of the decretal property i.e. Plot No. 26/253. Such exercise should be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The impugned order which was passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O, is thus, quashed. It is further clarified that the concerned B.L. & L.R.O is not required to seek any permission from the higher authority for correction of record of rights and in the event it is found that any contrary and/or adverse instruction has already been given by the higher authority, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O is required to comply with the order passed hereinabove by ignoring the instruction which might have been given by the higher authority in this regard. The writ petition is thus, disposed of.