Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 574 (CAL)

Sushila Dubey v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-02

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
Judgment Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. Admittedly Bhubaneswar Dubey was the owner of the land in dispute. After his death, a dispute cropped up between the petitioner and the sisters of the said Bhubaneswar Dubey as to who inherited the said property by way of succession through the said owner viz., Bhubaneswar Dubey. The petitioner claimed that she is the legally married wife of the said Bhubaneswar Dubey and as such the property left by her husband devolved upon her as his only successor. The sisters of the said Bhubaneswar Dubey challenged the legality of the marriage between Bhubaneswar Dubey and the petitioner. They filed a civil suit being Title Suit No. 56 of 1984 before the Learned Civil Court challenging the legality of the marriage between Bhubaneswar Dubey and the petitioner herein. Necessary declaration in this regard was sought for. The said suit was ultimately disposed of on compromise on 5th September, 2006. Taking note of the said compromise decree passed by the Learned Civil Court, the Learned Tribunal passed an order on 12th July, 2013 in OA No. 675 of 2011 (LRTT) filed by the petitioner directing the concerned B.L.&L.R.O. to act strictly in accordance with the order dated 5th September, 2006 passed by the Learned Civil Court in the said suit and correct the record of rights in favour of the litigating parties as per the decision of the Learned Civil Court recorded in the said compromise decree. Subsequently the petitioner on 12th December, 2013 filed an application before the Learned Tribunal, inter alia, praying for recalling the aforesaid order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2013. It was stated in the said application that the petitioner has not accepted the said compromise decree. She claimed that such compromise decree which was passed by the Learned Civil Court is a nullity as consent of the petitioner to such compromise was obtained by the plaintiff by exercising coercion and duress upon the petitioner. The said application for recall of the compromise decree filed by the petitioner is still pending for consideration before the Learned Civil Court. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for stay of operation of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2013 till the petitioner’s application for recall of the compromise decree is decided finally by the Learned Civil Court. We are informed by Mr. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for stay of operation of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2013 till the petitioner’s application for recall of the compromise decree is decided finally by the Learned Civil Court. We are informed by Mr. Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.5 that though such an application was filed by the petitioner before the Learned Trial Court, but no order has yet been passed by the Learned Trial Judge staying the operation of the compromise decree. As such, he contends that the compromise decree is still in operation and as such implementation thereof cannot be stalled. We are also informed by Mr. Goswami that in compliance of the order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2013, the concerned B.L.&L.R.O. has already corrected the record of rights in terms of the compromise decree and the corrected copy of the record of rights has also been supplied to his client. Under such circumstances, we feel that no useful purpose will be served by staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 12th July, 2013 as the order has already been implemented by the concerned B.L.&L.R.O. However, for the ends of justice, we direct that operation of the corrected record or rights will be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks and if in the meantime, the writ petitioner succeeds in obtaining any favourable order from the Learned Civil Court, the concerned B.L.&L.R.O. will modify the record of rights accordingly. We, however, make it clear that in the event the writ petitioner fails to obtain any favourable order from the Learned Civil Court, the restraint order of stay which is imposed upon the operation of the corrected record of rights hereinabove, will stand automatically lifted after expiry of three weeks and in such circumstances, operation of the corrected record of rights will stand revived immediately. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition in the manner as aforesaid, the tribunal application as well as the interlocutory application pending therein are deemed to be disposed of.