Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) It appears that the petitioner filed a title suit being T. Suit No. 204 of 1969 of the court of the learned Munsif at Dantan against the State of West Bengal and its officers for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the land involved in the suit and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands in dispute. It appears that the said suit was decreed on contest with cost against the defendant No. 1 the State of W. Bengal and ex parte without costs against the other state-respondents. The State of West Bengal was also restrained by an order of injunction from disturbing with the plaintiff's possession in the suit land. It appears that the State of West Bengal thereafter preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree being Title Appeal No. 64 of 1973 of Che Third court of the subordinate Judge, Midnapore but the said appeal was also dismissed on contest respondent No.1, namely, the plaintiff, and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was affirmed. The plaintiff thereafter made an application for recording the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the decree passed by the civil court, but unfortunately the Revenue authorities without any valid reason failed to record the names of the plaintiff petitioner and for the said purpose the instant writ petition was moved before this court. On the fact of the adjudication made by the civil court against the State of West Bengal, there is no occasion for the state to contend that the petitioner had no title to the suit land. Accordingly, the correction of the Record-of-Rights is a matter of course forgiving effect to the judgment passed against the State. In my view, the Revenue authorities acted illegally in not recording the names of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question. The learned Counsel for the State also submitted that when the plaintiff's title was declared by the civil court and the state lost in the appeal, the plaintiff is entitled to get his name recorded in the Revisional Record-of-rights. In the afore said circumstances, the Rule is made absolute and the Revenue and the Revenue authorities are directed to correct the Record-of-rights by inserting the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question and such correction should be done within six weeks from today. It is only unfortunate that because of negligence and laches on the part of the Revenue authorities, a citizen had to move this court in the constitution writ jurisdiction forgetting remedy. There will however, be no order as to costs.;