Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bimala Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 March, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
31.03.2014.
d.p.
W.P.L.R.T. 66 of 2014
Bimala Chakraborty
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anindya Lahiri,
Ms. Paramita Pal.
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguli.
...For the State.
The petitioner filed an application before the concerned B.L.
& L.R.O. Nabagram, Murshidabad praying for correction of record
of rights in the light of the judgement and decree passed by the
Civil Court in Title Suit No.224 of 1995. The said suit was filed by
the petitioner herein praying for declaration of her title in R.S. Plot
No. 403 within R.S. Khatian No. 529 measuring about 66 decimals
lying at Mouza-Jalukha, P.S.-Nabagram, District-Murshidabad.
The order of vesting of the suit property passed in B.R. Case No.
156 of 1971 was also challenged in the said suit and a declaration
was sought for declaring the said vesting order as void, collusive
and inoperative. Permanent injunction was also sought for by the
petitioner against the State-respondents from disturbing her
peaceful possession in the suit property. The said suit was decreed on contest by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalbagh on 9th June, 1999 by declaring the plaintiff's title in the suit property. The State-respondents were restrained permanently by an order of 2 injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree of the Learned Trial Judge, the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal challenging the said judgement and decree of the Learned Trial Judge before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lalbagh. The said appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 1 of 2001 was dismissed on contest by the Learned Appeal Court on 21st August, 2008. The judgement and decree passed by the Learned Trial Judge was affirmed in the said appeal.
The State-respondents did not challenge the said judgement and decree of the Appeal Court in any higher forum.
Accordingly, the judgement and decree which was passed by the Learned Appeal Court in the said appeal, attained its finality. The State Government cannot take a different stand in any subsequent proceeding to nullify the effect of the decree passed by the Learned Trial Judge in the said suit which was affirmed in appeal.
But unfortunately when the concerned B.L. & L.R.O., Nabagram was approached by the petitioner herein for correction of record of rights in terms of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. instead of correcting the record of rights in terms of the said judgement and decree of the Civil Court, criticized the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court by questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide such suit as according to the said B.L. & L.R.O. jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such suit is barred under Section 14X of 3 the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 read with Section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act.
An identical question was raised before another Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court regarding the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit and the said dispute was ultimately resolved by the said Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Niranjan Chatterjee & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2007(3) CHN, 683 wherein it was held as follows:-
"Paragraph 3--It is now settled position of law that entry in a record-of-rights does not create any title nor does it extinguish the title of lawful owner but the entry has a presumption of correctness which is, of course, rebuttable. In such a situation, if a Civil Court declares title of a person in respect of a property and restrains the State of West Bengal from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, the presumption arising out of entry in the record- of-rights stands rebutted. The law is equally settled that a party, after suffering a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction, cannot ignore such decree without challenging such decree before appropriate forum at the appropriate time. In the case before us, the State of West Bengal having accepted the decree passed by the Civil Court, the same has attained finality and therefore, a Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act is incompetent to declare that a decree passed by a Civil Court is a nullity."
Keeping in view the aforesaid principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the said decision, we have no hesitation to hold that the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. was absolutely unjustified in refusing to correct the record of rights for 4 the reason assigned by him in his order dated 19th September, 2013 in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2013.
Though we are conscious that such an order is appealable under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, still we do not feet it a proper case where any further adjudication on facts is necessary for correcting the record of rights as prayed for by the petitioner.
Accordingly, instead of relegating the petitioner to the appellate forum for challenging the said order of the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. in appeal under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, we dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. on 19th September, 2013 vide order No. 3 in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2013 appearing at page 52 of the writ petition and direct the said authority to correct the record of rights in the light of the Civil Court's judgement and decree as mentioned above positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to mention here that for carrying out this direction, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. need not seek any further instruction from any higher authority regarding correction of record of rights and it is also made clear that in the event any adverse instruction is given by the higher authority in this regard, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. will ignore the same and will carry out our direction as given above within the time as mentioned above.
The writ petition is thus, disposed of with the above observation.
5In view of the disposal of this writ petition in the manner as aforesaid, the tribunal application is deemed to be disposed of.
The Registry is directed to intimate this order upon the concerned Tribunal immediately.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioners immediately.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J ) ( Ishan Chandra Das, J.)