JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on 24th June, 2011 in O.A. No. 333 of 2010 (LRTT) at the instance of the writ petitioners who were applicants before the Learned Tribunal. Let us consider the merit of the writ petition in the facts of the instant case.
(2.) IN a suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 1988 filed by the petitioner's vendor viz. Ramapati Maity against the State of West Bengal and Anr., the right, title and interest of the petitioner's vendor in respect of the disputed land was declared by the judgement and decree passed in the said suit on 26th September, 1989. While declaring the right, title and interest of the petitioner's vendor in the suit property, it was held by the Learned Trial Judge that such declaration is subject to the ceiling limit of the raiyat under Section 14M of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and/or retention of the same as per the Rules framed thereunder. The possession of the petitioner's vendor in the suit property was confirmed. The defendants therein were restrained from disturbing such possession of the plaintiff therein on the plea of non -payment of rent compensation demanded by the respondent No.2 viz. the Irrigation Department of the State of West Bengal. The State of West Bengal contested the said suit and suffered a decree passed therein. The State of West Bengal did not challenge the legality and/or correctness of the said decree passed by the Civil Court before any higher forum. Thus, the judgement and decree which was passed in the said suit, attained its finality and the same is binding on the parties to the said suit. As such, the State of West Bengal and/or the other defendants therein cannot take any stand contrary to the findings arrived at by the Civil Court while passing the said decree. It is worth mentioning here that even a void decree cannot be challenged in collateral proceeding and such void decree is binding upon the parties until it declared invalid by the court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs - State of Punjab and Anr., 2012 1 WbLR 756. Following the said principle of law, we hold that the decree passed in the Civil Court is not only binding upon the parties but also the legality of such decree cannot be tested by the Tribunal which is neither an appellate court nor a court competent to assess the correctness of the judgement of the Civil Court. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the said property from his vendor viz. the decreeholder of the said suit. He applied for correction of the record of rights and/or for mutation of his name as raiyat in respect of the said land before the concerned Revenue Officer. Such application having been rejected by the concerned B.L. and L.R.O., he filed a Tribunal application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal challenging the said order of the Revenue Officer by which the petitioner's application for correction of record of rights was rejected. The said Tribunal application which was registered as O.A. No. 333 of 2010, was ultimately rejected by the Learned Tribunal on 24th June, 2011. Though the order rejecting the petitioner's application for correction of the record of rights, passed by the B.L. and L.R.O. was appealable under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act but no such appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate forum.
(3.) HOWEVER , the maintainability of the said Tribunal application was not raised before the Learned Tribunal by the State -respondents even though the petitioner, without filing any appeal, approached the Tribunal straight way for challenging the order of the concerned B.L. and L.R.O. Thus, the objection regarding maintainability of the said appeal in our view, was waived by the State -respondents.;