- (1.) The state respondent treated land in question belonging to the petitioner deity as vested under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act due to non -submission of return in 'B' form within the cut off date. Thus, the title of the petitioner in the land in question was clouded. To remove the said cloud, the petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 114 of 1982 in the Court of the learned Munsif at Amita, Howrah, praying for declaration of its title in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction for restraining the state respondents from disturbing the petitioner's possession therein. The state respondent appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement denying the material allegations made out by the petitioner in the plaint. The state respondent maintained their stand about the vesting of the petitioner's land with the state under the Estate Acquisition Act due to non -submission of return in 'B' form within the cut off date. The respondent also questioned the competence and/or jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for injunction in view of the provision contained in Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. The said suit was ultimately decreed by the learned Munsif on 17th November, 1989. The right title, interest and possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land was declared and the state respondents were restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from disturbing the petitioner's possession in respect of the said landed property. While deciding the said suit, it was - recorded by the learned Trial Judge that though an issue regarding the competence of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit was raised by the state respondent in view of the provision contained in Section 576(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, but in course of the trial of the suit, the said objection was not pressed amounting to abandonment of the said objection by the state respondent. The learned Trial Judge held that possession of the suit property was not taken by the state respondent upon service of notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act upon the intermediary. The learned Trial Judge also held that exercise of option for retention of the land by the intermediary by filing 'B' form before possession of the land was taken over by the State Government by service of notice under Section 10(2) of the said Act upon the intermediary, is permissible. Thus, the learned Trial Judge held that since such 'B' form was submitted by the intermediary on 25th April, 1984 before possession of the said land was taken over by the state respondent from the petitioner by service of notice upon it under Section 10(2) of the said Act the right title and interest of the intermediary in respect of the said land cannot be held to be affected by the vesting order. As such, the learned Trial Judge declared the title of the deity in respect of the said land and passed a decree for permanent injunction against the state respondent. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, the state respondent preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 86 of 1990 before the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Howrah, but ultimately became unsuccessful in the said appeal. The state respondent did not challenge the order of the appeal Court before any other higher forum and thus, the state respondent ultimately accepted the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge which was affirmed in appeal.
(2.) Since rights of the parties was finally decided in the said suit which attained its finality after the dismissal of the appeal filed by the state respondent, the state respondent cannot subsequently contend that the land of the petitioner was vested with the state under the Estate Acquisition Act, Thus, the state respondent also cannot refuse to update its record of rights in the light of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court as aforesaid.
(3.) Here is the case, where we find that after the rights of the petitioner was declared in the civil suit as aforesaid, it applied for correction of the record of rights in the light of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court before the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Since the petitioner's said application for correction of record of rights was kept in a dormant stage for a long time, the petitioner filed a Tribunal application being O.A. No. 2725 of 2006 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, instead of issuing any direction upon the concerned Revenue Officer for early disposal of the petitioner's said application for correction of record of rights, dismissed the Tribunal application by holding inter alia that the judgment and decree which was passed by the Civil Court declaring the title of the petitioner is a nullity in view of the fact that Civil Court which passed the said decree had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit in view of the provision contained in Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge before us in' this writ petition.;