AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioners to carry out the necessary corrections to the cause title of the writ petition to reflect the writ petitioners in the representative capacity of shebaits of the deity Sri Sri Durga Thakurani.
Ms. Nandini Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, argues that the learned Tribunal erred in law in refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in a challenge against a palpably vitiated and perverse order of the concerned B.L. & L.R.O, reopening the decree passed by a competent civil court. It is argued that the learned Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, proceeded on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction, since there was a provision for statutory appeal against the order of the B.L. & L.R.O. However, it is contended that if the order is palpably tainted by jurisdictional error, the Tribunal has ample power to set aside the same.
Learned counsel takes the Court through the judgment and decree passed in a civil suit filed on behalf of the deity, where the State and the B.L. & L.R.O both were defendants. The said suit was decreed in favour of the deity, of which the present petitioners are shebaits, by declaring the title of the deity and restraining the defendants from disturbing the title and possession of the deity in respect of the subject property.
As such, the B.L. & L.R.O, while holding that the said decree was bad in law, in view of the bar under Section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short “the 1953 Act”), the same was a patent jurisdictional error, since the conclusive decree passed by a civil court cannot be reopened by a B.L. & L.R.O.
Even otherwise, it is contended that the subject property being below the ceiling limit as stipulated under the 1953 Act, the question of retention did not arise at all and, as such, the bar under Section 57B(2) is not applicable.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the present case, B form was filed but much beyond the statutory time limit. As such, it is argued that the B.L. & L.R.O was justified in observing that the bar under Section 57B of the 1953 Act was applicable, as the question revolved around whether a raiyat or an intermediary is or is not entitled to retain under the provisions of the Act.
Even otherwise, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal rightly pointed out that since there is a provision of statutory appeal, the same cannot be bypassed by usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority by the Tribunal.
Upon a comprehensive perusal of the materials before us, we find substance in the contentions of the writ petitioners.
The B.L. & L.R.O, in its order dated June 02, 2017, came to the finding that in view of the bar under Section 57B of the 1953 Act, debarring initiation of a suit assailing an order of vesting, the decree passed in the civil suit was without jurisdiction, thereby virtually nullifying the decree of the civil court.
However, as held in a coordinate Bench judgment in WPLRT 71 of 2026 (Prabir Kumar Ghosh @ Prabir Ghosh and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others), cited by the writ petitioners, if a civil court has already declared the right, title and interest of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject plot, the Tribunal would be without jurisdiction in dismissing the original application even if the private respondents are in occupation of the said plot forcibly, which possession would then prima facie be unlawful.
Although no detailed proposition was laid down in the said judgment, even independently, we find from the tenor of the civil court’s decree in the present case, which was passed in Title Suit No. 151 of 1995, that the relief sought before the civil court was principally declaration of title to the suit property and the relief of permanent injunction was merely consequential thereto. It is only the civil court which is vested with the jurisdiction of declaring the title of a person or entity in a property. Within the four corners of the 1953 Act, there is no Authority which is clothed with such power. Thus, the civil court, while passing the decree in the present case, was exercising its exclusive domain as contemplated under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Hence, it cannot be said that the bar under Section 57B (2) was operative. The civil court was not deciding a question whether a raiyat or an intermediary is entitled to retain under the provision of the 1953 Act but independently declaring the title to the property.
Secondly, in view of the admitted position that the area of the subject property fell below the ceiling limit, there was no vesting at all under the provisions of the 1953 Act, thereby rendering academic the question of retention of any land. The question of retention under Section 6 of the 1953 Act arises only in cases where the land is above the ceiling limit. If the land is within such limit, there is no question of retention or entitlement thereto in the first place. Thus, the bar under Section 57B(2)(b), which provides that no civil court shall entertain any suit or application where a dispute involving determination of the question whether a raiyat or an intermediary is or is not entitled to retain under the provisions of the Act, is not attracted at all.
Hence, the B.L. & L.R.O committed a patent and palpable jurisdictional error in reopening the decree of the civil court as well as in holding that the bar under Section 57B of the 1953 Act was applicable at all.
It cannot be lost sight of that under the provisions of Section 10 read with Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, the Tribunal is clothed with powers akin to the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
In fact, even the vires of the specified Acts are also amenable to challenge before the Tribunal under Section 6 of the said Act. Thus, it was well within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to set aside the order of the B.L. & L.R.O which was tainted by patent jurisdictional error.
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as that of the B.L. & L.R.O cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, WPLRT 146 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated November 12, 2025 passed by the Fourth Bench of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 2388 of 2017 (LRTT) as well as Order No.2 dated June 02, 2017 passed by the Revenue Officer, that is, the B.L. & L.R.O, Onda, District: Bankura in Case No. 192 of 2017.
The said B.L. & L.R.O, that is, respondent no.3 herein, is hereby directed to correct the records of rights and mutate the subject property in the name of the deity Sri Sri Durga Thakurani, represented by the present writ petitioners as shebaits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the B.L. & L.R.O.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.