Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) This writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2000, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in Original Application No. 414 of 2000 (LRTT), dismissing the petitioners' application for a direction upon the respondents concerned to correct the relevant Records -of -Rights in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Birbhum, in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1972, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, in Tide Suit No. 157/71 (T. S. 144 of 1969). The learned Tribunal upon applying the provisions of Sec. 57B (2) (a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and upon further interpretation of the reliefs actually prayed for by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, inter alia, came to a finding that the plaintiffs suit. although styled as a Title Suit was, in actuality, a suit for declaration that he was a tenant under his father and uncle. The learned Tribunal also observed that Sec. 57B(2)(c) had excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain a suit for such declaration, no matter how the suit had been styled, because the genuineness of the tenancy and whether it was a collusive transaction to evade the ceiling provision was to be decided by the authorities under the Act. According to the learned Tribunal, by deciding the said question, the learned District Judge acted without jurisdiction and the judgment delivered in Title Appeal was therefore, a nullity in the eye of law.
(2.) Appearing in support of the application. Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned counsel submitted that in fact, the order of the learned Tribunal was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, being a creature of statute, the powers of the Tribunal would have to be exercised in accordance with the powers as vested in the Tribunal under the statute. According to Mr. Mukherjee, there is no provision in the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, which empowers the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal to nullify and/or in effect overrule a judgment and decree of a civil court.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the opening words of Sec. 6 of the aforesaid Act indicate that the learned Tribunal could deal with matters relating to events which had taken place after the said Act came into force. Mr. Mukherjee urged that since the judgment of the civil court was long prior to the commencement of the 1997 Act, the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in sitting in appeal over the judgment of the civil court.;