Ar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4674 Cal

08      08.9.2021                   WPLRT 140 of 2012
Ct-16
                                          with
                                  IA No. CAN 1 of 2013
                               (Old No. CAN 6636 of 2013)

                                      Smt. Ashima Rani Ghoah
ar                                               Vs.
                                   The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                         Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
                         Mr. Pulak Ghoshal
                         Mr. Sudip Kumar Maity
                         Ms. Saswati Adhikary
                                     .... For the Petitioner

                         Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata
                         Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata
                                     .... For the State Respondents

The original applicant in O.A No. 980 of 2011 (LRTT) has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated February 22, 2012 by virtue of which the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the order passed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ayushgram-II in Objection Case No. 163 of 2008, which was affirmed in appeal in Appeal Case No. 36 of 2008 passed on July 28, 2010.

The writ petitioner claims to have purchased the suit plot from Shaktipada Ghosh by way of a sale deed dated 13th May, 1992. The name of the respondent no. 4 was recorded as 'Bargadar' in the record of rights.

The writ petitioner filed a Title Suit being no. 29 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Burdwan. The said suit was decreed in favour of the writ petitioner by a judgment and decree dated August 10, 2007 thereby declaring the right, title and interest of the writ petitioner in respect of the said plot with further declaration that the L.R record of rights prepared by the concerned Revenue Officer was illegal and

without jurisdiction. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/writ petitioner in the suit property.

The writ petitioner thereafter applied for correction of the record of rights on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court.

The Revenue Officer by an order dated February 14, 2008 rejected the prayer for correction of the record of rights. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Land & Land Reforms Officer in Appeal Case no. 36 of 2008. The appellate authority by an order dated July 28, 2010 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority which prompted the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court.

Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the revenue authority is duty bound to correct the record of rights in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. He submits that the revenue authority, though corrected the record of rights recording the name of the petitioner as a raiyat but refused to strike out the name of the Bargadar which, according to Mr. Chattopadhyay, is contrary to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court.

Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 read with Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,

1955. He submits that when a question arises in a suit or in any proceeding as to whether a person is a Bargadar or not, such question is referred to the revenue authority and Civil Court is not competent to decide such issue. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have considered the materials on record.

The Civil Court declared the right, title, interest and possession of the writ petitioner over the suit property and also passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the writ petitioner. The said decree attained finality as none of the parties challenged the same before any superior forum. The State as well as the respondent no. 4 were parties in the said suit. The revenue authorities are duty bound to correct the entries in the record of rights in terms of the Civil Court's judgment and decree.

In the instant case the name of the writ petitioner has been recorded in the record of rights as a raiyat in terms of the Civil Court's judgment and decree. However, the action of the revenue authority for not deleting the name of the respondent no. 4 from the record of rights as a Bargadar is the subject matter of challenge before us. The appellate authority held that since in the original application for mutation there was no prayer for correction of the record of rights in terms of the order of the Civil Court, such prayer cannot be entertained by the appellate authority. On such ground the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The learned Tribunal also refused to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer as well as the appellate authority.

It is not in dispute that a proceeding under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1995 was initiated on the basis of the prayer for

mutation made by the writ petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the judgment of the Civil Court passed in Title Suit no. 29 of 1998 was produced before the said authority. The writ petitioner also relied upon a judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPLRT 331 of 2007 in support of his contention that the revenue officer is bound to obey the order of the Civil Court.

It is thus, clear that the object of the writ petitioner was correction of record of rights in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The appellate authority, in our view, failed to exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the appeal on such hyper technical ground. The learned Tribunal also, in our view failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter while dismissing the original application. However, we find substance in the argument of Mr. Mahata that if any question arises as to whether a person is a "Bargadar" or not, the same shall be decided by the officer or authority mentioned under Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955. This Court feels that since the name of the respondent no. 4 is still recorded in the record of rights as a Bargadar, the issue whether the said respondent is a Bargadar or not is to be decided by the authority mentioned under Section 18(1) of the Act.

Accordingly the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ayushgram-II is directed to decide the said issue after taking into consideration the judgment and decree dated August 10, 2007 passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1998 and other relevant materials that may be placed by the parties before such authority by passing a

reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the concerned revenue authority shall decide such issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as any other interested parties including the respondent nos. 4,5 and 6 in this writ petition.

We, however, make it clear that any finding with regard to the issue of Bargadar in the judgment of the Civil Court shall not operate as res judicata in the proceeding before the revenue authority.

WPLRT 140 of 2012 is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, CAN 1 of 2013 (Old CAN No. 6636 of 2013) has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. The parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order.

Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)