Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
4 vs Matter on 18 October, 2023
W.P.L.R.T 2 of 2022
18.10.2023
Mor Selim Molla & Ors.
Court
Item
: 04
: 04 Vs.
Matter
Status
: WPLRT
: SERVICE The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Bench ID : 266048
Transcriber : MNS
with
W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021
Zorina Bibi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
W.P.L.R.T 74 of 2021
Istiq Ahmed Laskar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Advocate
..... for the Petitioner
Mr. Chandi Charan De, Advocate
Mr. Anirban Sarkar, Advocate
......for the State
1.
The matter is listed at the behest of the Counsel appearing
for the appellants seeking correction of some typographical
errors crept up in the judgment dated- 23.12.2022 passed
by this Court. At the time of hearing learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants submitted that in respect of
appeal preferred by Zorina Bibi (W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021) and
Istiq Ahmed Laskar & Ors (W.P.L.R.T 74 of 2021), some
numbers, names and facts are not similar with the judgment
passed in W.P.L.R.T 2 of 2022 preferred by Mor Selim Molla
& Ors and the same is required to be corrected by the Court.
2. Our attention is drawn in respect of some pages of the
judgment passed by this Court in connection with W.P.L.R.T
2 of 2022 wherein it is found that some numbers and names
as mentioned in that judgment are not applicable in respect
of appeal No(s). W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021 and W.P.L.R.T 74 of
2021 preferred by the appellants Zorina Bibi and Istiq
Ahemed Laskar and Ors. We find that the mistakes are
apparent.
3. Let the judgment be corrected in respect of appeal No(s).
W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021 and W.P.L.R.T 74 of 2021 in the
following manner:-
Re: W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021
1. The first and last paragraphs at page 2 of the judgment are
to be replaced by the following paragraphs.
"The instant appeal is preferred by the petitioners being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated
08.11.2021 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal in M.A No. 379 of 2014 (O.A No. 1412 of
2013).
One Birendra Krishna Dutta and others were the R.S.
recorded tenants in respect of some plots situated within
Mouza Ramkrishnapur under Joynagar Police Station
within District 24 Parganas being R.S. Khatian No. 669. In
the remark column of the said Record of Rights the name of
Rosan Laskar, Ismail Laskar and Khadem Laskar were
recorded as 'Jordong'. Cassem Ali Laskar, Ismail Laskar and
Khadem Laskar filed a Title Suit being No. 115 of 1981
against the State of West Bengal and others before the Civil
Court at Baruipur praying for declaration of title and
permanent Injunction in respect of plots where the names
of their predecessor in interest were recorded as 'Jordong'."
2. Similarly at page 3 of the judgment following paragraphs
are to be replaced in place of the entire 3 paragraphs of
that page.
"The said Title Suit being No. 115 of 1981 was decreed by
the Civil Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter the
decree holders and their heirs sold and transferred the
plots in question in favour of these petitioners and their
predecessors by several registered deeds. An application
was submitted before the concerned Block land and Land
Reforms Officer by the petitioners for correction of the
relevant record of rights. Concerned B.L. and L.R.O disposed
of the applications on 06.09.2012 without passing any
order for correction of the relevant Record of Rights. The
petitioners knocked the door of the Tribunal challenging
the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the B.L. and L.R.O in
O.A. No. 1412 of 2013.
The Tribunal disposed of the said case thereby setting aside
the order dated- 06.09.2012 with direction upon the
authority to consider the mutation case afresh but the
concerned B.L. and L.R.O was sitting tight over the matter
and did not take any steps as directed by the Tribunal.
Finding no other way the petitioners filed an application for
contempt being No, 379 of 2014 before the Tribunal. After
hearing of both sides the Tribunal dismissed the contempt
application by passing the impugned order dated
08.11.2021.
The petitioners/appellants challenged the impugned order
dated 08.11.2021 passed by the tribunal before this court
by filing this Writ Petition being No. W.P.L.R.T 73 of 2021."
3. The second paragraph at page 7 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"By the judgement and decree the learned civil court
decreed the suit against the State of West Bengal and
declared that the plaintiffs had right, title and interest over
the properties in question. Since the prayer of the
petitioners for correction of record of rights were not
entertained by the concerned Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer an application was preferred before the
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and the
said Tribunal directed the concerned authority to consider
the mutation case afresh within time limit as mentioned in
the said order. As the authority concerned did not comply
the direction of the Tribunal these petitioners filed an
application for contempt being M.A. No. 379 of 2014. In
connection with aforesaid application the concerned Block
Land and Land Reforms Officer submitted a report dated
29.06.2015 as compliance. It reflects from the said report
that it has not followed the direction as made by the
Tribunal dated 28.11.2013 and ultimately the contempt
application as filed by the petitioners was dismissed by
passing the impugned order."
4. The first paragraph at page 8 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"We are of the opinion that the tribunal committed gross
mistake in holding that the authority concerned has power
and authority to question about the decree passed by the
competent court of law. The learned tribunal also
committed error in not considering the fact that in earlier
occasion it gave direction upon the authority concerned to
consider the mutation case as filed by the petitioners afresh
in the light of judgement and decree passed by the
competent civil court in connection with Title Suit No.115
of 1981."
5. The second paragraph at page 9 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"Therefore there is no escape from not complying with the
judgement and decree passed by the civil court in respect of
making necessary corrections in the record of rights. We
find that the tribunal committed mistake and error by
observing that with due diligence the concerned authority
tried to dispose of the case referring various statutory
provisions and judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court for
consideration of applicant's mutation cases afresh
according to his understanding of the relevant provisions of
law which may be right or erroneous. The learned Tribunal
ought to have directed the concerned B.L. and L.R.O to
make necessary correction in the Record of Rights in terms
of the decree passed by the learned Munsiff, 3rd Court,
Baruipur in Title Suit No. 115 of 1981 since the said
judgement and decree has not been set aside by any higher
forum. Moreover, we find that the concerned authority has
no capacity to question about the decree passed by a civil
court. When the question of right, title, interest and
possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the property in
question has already been adjudicated by a civil court then
there is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the
decree of the civil court is not binding and the tribunal
should not be allowed to question about the said judgment
and decree."
6. Third and fourth paragraphs at page No. 10 of the judgment
are to be replaced by the following paragraphs.
"Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.11.2021 passed
by the learned Tribunal passed in connection with case no
M.A. 379 of 2014 (O.A. 1412 of 2013) is hereby set-aside.
Thus we dispose of this application by directing the
concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to make
necessary correction in the record of rights in terms of
decree passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court at Baruipur in Title
Suit No.115 of 1981."
Re: W.P.L.R.T 74 of 2021
1. The first and last paragraphs at page 2 of the judgment are
to be replaced in place of the entire paragraphs.
"The instant appeal is preferred by the petitioners being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated
08.11.2021 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal in M.A No. 378 of 2014 (O.A No. 555 of
2013).
One Birendra Krishna Dutta and others were the R.S.
recorded tenants in respect of some plots situated within
Mouza Ramkrishnapur under Joynagar Police Station
within District 24 Parganas being R.S. Khatian No. 669. In
the remark column of the said Record of Rights the name of
Rosan Laskar, Ismail Laskar and Khadem Laskar were
recorded as 'Jordong'. Cassem Ali Laskar, Ismail Laskar and
Khadem Laskar filed a Title Suit being No. 115 of 1981
against the State of West Bengal and others before the Civil
Court at Baruipur praying for declaration of title and
permanent Injunction in respect of plots where the names
of their predecessor in interest were recorded as 'Jordong'."
2. Similarly at page 3 of the judgment following paragraphs
are to be replaced in place of the entire paragraphs of that
page
"The said Title Suit being No. 115 of 1981 was decreed by
the Civil Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter the
decree holders and their heirs sold and transferred the
plots in question in favour of these petitioners and their
predecessors by several registered deeds. An application
was submitted before the concerned Block land and Land
Reforms Officer by the petitioners for correction of the
relevant record of rights. Concerned B.L. and L.R.O disposed
of the applications on 06.09.2012 without passing any
order for correction of the relevant Record of Rights. The
petitioners knocked the door of the Tribunal challenging
the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the B.L. and L.R.O in
O.A. No. 555 of 2013.
The Tribunal disposed of the said case thereby setting aside
the order dated- 06.09.2012 with direction upon the
authority to consider the mutation case afresh but the
concerned B.L. and L.R.O was sitting tight over the matter
and did not take any steps as directed by the Tribunal.
Finding no other way the petitioners filed an application for
contempt being No, 378 of 2014 before the Tribunal. After
hearing of both sides the Tribunal dismissed the contempt
application by passing the impugned order dated
08.11.2021.
The petitioners/appellants challenged the impugned order
dated 08.11.2021 passed by the tribunal before this court
by filing this Writ Petition being No. W.P.L.R.T 74 of 2021."
3. The second paragraph at page 7 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"By the judgement and decree the learned civil court
decreed the suit against the State of West Bengal and
declared that the plaintiffs had right, title and interest over
the properties in question. Since the prayer of the
petitioners for correction of record of rights were not
entertained by the concerned Block Land and Land
Reforms Officer an application was preferred before the
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and the
said Tribunal directed the concerned authority to consider
the mutation case afresh within time limit as mentioned in
the said order. As the authority concerned did not comply
the direction of the Tribunal these petitioners filed an
application for contempt being M.A. No. 378 of 2014. In
connection with aforesaid application the concerned Block
Land and Land Reforms Officer submitted a report dated
29.06.2015 as compliance. It reflects from the said report
that it has not followed the direction as made by the
Tribunal dated 28.11.2013 and ultimately the contempt
application as filed by the petitioners was dismissed by
passing the impugned order."
4. The first paragraph at page 8 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"We are of the opinion that the tribunal committed gross
mistake in holding that the authority concerned has power
and authority to question about the decree passed by the
competent court of law. The learned tribunal also
committed error in not considering the fact that in earlier
occasion it gave direction upon the authority concerned to
consider the mutation case as filed by the petitioners afresh
in the light of judgement and decree passed by the
competent civil court in connection with Title Suit No.115
of 1981."
5. The second paragraph at page 9 of the judgment is to be
replaced by the following paragraph.
"Therefore there is no escape from not complying with the
judgement and decree passed by the civil court in respect of
making necessary corrections in the record of rights. We
find that the tribunal committed mistake and error by
observing that with due diligence the concerned authority
tried to dispose of the case referring various statutory
provisions and judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court for
consideration of applicant's mutation cases afresh
according to his understanding of the relevant provisions of
law which may be right or erroneous. The learned Tribunal
ought to have directed the concerned B.L. and L.R.O to
make necessary correction in the Record of Rights in terms
of the decree passed by the learned Munsiff, 3rd Court,
Baruipur in Title Suit No. 115 of 1981 since the said
judgement and decree has not been set aside by any higher
forum. Moreover, we find that the concerned authority has
no capacity to question about the decree passed by a civil
court. When the question of right, title, interest and
possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the property in
question has already been adjudicated by a civil court then
there is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the
decree of the civil court is not binding and the tribunal
should not be allowed to question about the said judgement
and decree."
6. Third and fourth paragraphs at page No. 10 of the judgment
are to be replaced by the following paragraphs.
"Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.11.2021 passed
by the learned Tribunal passed in connection with case no
M.A. 378 of 2014 (O.A. 555 of 2013) is hereby set-aside.
Thus we dispose of this application by directing the
concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to make
necessary correction in the record of rights in terms of
decree passed by the Munsif, 3rd Court at Baruipur in Title
Suit No.115 of 1981."
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
