Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

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.

In a suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 1988 filed by the petitioners vendor viz. Ramapati Maity against the State of West Bengal & Anr., the right, title and interest of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 Honble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs- State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012)1 WBLR (SC) 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. & 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 petitioners 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 petitioners application for correction of the record of rights, passed by the B.L. & 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.

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. & L.R.O. Thus, the objection regarding maintainability of the said appeal in our view, was waived by the State-respondents.

As a matter of fact, the Learned Tribunal was invited to consider the merit of the said Tribunal application and both the parties made their respective submissions either in support of or against the legality of the order passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. on the petitioners application for correction of record of rights.

In fact, the Learned Tribunal also considered the said Tribunal application on its merit and while doing so the Learned Tribunal sat in appeal over the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Court.

In our view, the Learned Tribunal not being an Appellate Authority was not only incompetent to consider the correctness of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court but also in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction in making an effort to consider the legality of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court, while dealing with the Tribunal application.

In our view, the judgement and decree of the Civil Court which attained its finality, is binding not only upon the Revenue Authority but also upon the Tribunal. If the Tribunal is allowed to test the legality of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court, then there will be no finality in the adjudication by the Civil Court with regard to the disputed question of title between the two parties claiming contradictory claims for title over the property. The Civil Courts jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title between the private individual and the State-respondents is well recognised by this Honble Court in the following decisions:-

1. In the case of Surendra Nath Dey vs- The Revenue Officer & Ors. reported in 1988(2) CLJ page 444,

2. In the case of Prabhangshu Sekhar Maity vs- State of West Bengal reported in 2012(4) CHN page 167.

By following principle laid down by this Honble Court in those decisions, we can safely conclude that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the dispute over the title between two claimants making conflicting claim of title over the suit property cannot be disputed, even though while considering the question of title in such a suit, the court is incidentally required to consider the correctness of the finally published record of rights.

Mr. Dhar, Learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents submits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to resolve the dispute between two claimants of title over the property is barred under Section 61 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs- Hari Mohan Dana (Dead) by LRS. And Ors. reported in 2008(13) SCALE, 480.

We have given our anxious consideration to the said submission of Mr. Dhar. We have also considered the judgement which was cited by Mr. Dhar in support of his such submission.

That was a case where we find a dispute regarding the ceiling limit of a raiyat under

Section 14T(3) was resolved by the High Court by holding that there was no surplus area in the hands of the family and as such, the vesting order was set aside.

In such context, the Honble Supreme Court after considering the provision contained in Section 61 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter pertaining to determination of surplus area under the Act, is barred under Section 61 thereof.

As such, the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order of this High Court. While setting aside the order of the High Court, the Honble Supreme Court also recorded in the order that the order passed by the Revenue Officer under Section 14T(3) is appealable under Section 14T(7) read with Section 54 of the said Act.

As such, it was directed that if an appeal is filed by the land owner within 60 days from the date of supply of the certified copy of the said order, the State of West Bengal shall not raise the plea of limitation.

In our view, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court which was relied upon by Mr.Dhar,is not an authority on the proposition of law that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title between two claimants making rival claims of title over the suit property. That was a case where the Honble Supreme Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider the legality of the order passed by the Revenue Officer on the question of ceiling limit of raiyat under Section 14T (3) of the said Act. The Honble Supreme Court has also held that the said order passed by the Revenue Officer determining the ceiling limit of raiyat is appealable under Section 14T(7), read with Section 54 of the said Act.

Under such circumstances, we hold that this was a fit case where an appeal should have been filed by the petitioner for challenging the order rejecting the petitioners application for correction of record of rights which is also appealable under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

As such, we set aside the judgement and order passed by the Learned Tribunal and permit the petitioner to file a regular statutory appeal before the appellate authority under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for challenging the legality of the order passed by the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer within 30 days from date, and in the event such an appeal is filed, the State respondents will not raise any objection regarding bar of the appeal on the point of limitation and in the event such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the appellate authority will consider and dispose of the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law and will pass a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other respondents and without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order which we have already declared as illegal.

It is, however, made clear that all other points which are available to the parties in connection with the said appeal may be urged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority is also required to consider the points which will be raised by the parties in this regard, excepting the bar of limitation. Such consideration should be completed by the appellate authority within eight weeks from the date of filing such appeal.

Having regard to the fact that the Civil Court, upon considering all the respective contentions of the parties, passed a decree declaring the title of the plaintiffs vendor and confirmed his possession in the suit property and also passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the State of West Bengal from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs vendor, the State of West Bengal is restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioner being the purchaser of the said land from the decree holder, without following due process of law.

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.