Section 57B bars civil-court jurisdiction over disputes concerning a raiyat’s entitlement to retain land.

The petitioners claimed title to 8.56 acres of land originally purchased by their father, Based Ali, in favour of their grandmother, Hafeza Khatun, on 19 April 1965, and subsequently gifted by Hafeza to the petitioners through two hiba-bil-iwaz deeds dated 2 May 1979. Their names were allegedly recorded in the LR record-of-rights, and they claimed possession and payment of rent.

A proceeding under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was initiated on the basis of a Form 7A return submitted by Hafeda Khatun, the other wife of Badiruddin Ahmed. The Revenue Officer treated the land of Hafeza and Hafeda as part of the same family holding and ordered vesting of surplus land in the State.

The petitioners instituted O.C. Suit No. 231 of 1981, challenging the vesting and the relevant record-of-rights, principally contending that Hafeza was divorced, lived separately, and could not be treated as a member of Hafeda’s family. The civil suit was decreed in their favour on 27 July 1988, and the decree was affirmed in O.C. Appeal No. 30 of 1988 on 29 June 1989.

Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for annulment of pattas granted to third parties over portions of the land and for substitution of equivalent land from the retained schedule of the former big raiyat. The Revenue Officer ordered annulment of the pattas and correction of the record-of-rights.

The petitioners thereafter sought correction of the record-of-rights by the BL & LRO, Hemtabad. The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in O.A. 2907 of 2025, declined to grant relief. The present writ petition challenged the Tribunal’s judgment dated 19 December 2025.

1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioners’ challenge to vesting and the consequential correction of the record-of-rights, in view of the bar under Section 57B of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 and the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

2. Whether the civil court’s decree declaring the petitioners’ title and restraining the State from interfering with possession was binding so as to require the BL & LRO to rectify the record-of-rights.

3. Whether the case fell within the recognised exceptions to the statutory bar, including violation of natural justice, lack of authority, matters outside Section 57B(2), or a suit principally seeking declaration of title with record correction as consequential relief.

Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 bars civil suits concerning alteration of finally published or corrected records-of-rights, disputes as to whether a raiyat or intermediary is entitled to retain land, and matters required to be decided by authorities under the Act.

Section 61 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 similarly excludes the jurisdiction of courts over questions relating to land which are required to be or have been decided by Revenue Officers or prescribed authorities.

Section 14T governs the furnishing of returns and determination of surplus land liable to vest.

In Sudharani Maity v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 1 CHN 1, as explained in Sridam Mahata v. State of West Bengal, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1715, the statutory bar is not absolute where there is a violation of natural justice, the deciding authority lacked jurisdiction, the dispute falls outside Section 57B(2)(a)–(c), or the principal relief is declaration of title and record correction is merely consequential.

The Court also referred to Abdul Hakim Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6997.

The Court held that the real controversy was not an independent adjudication of title but whether Hafeza Khatun’s land could be included while determining the ceiling and retainable area of Hafeda Khatun’s holding. That question directly concerned retention and vesting of land under the statutory land-reforms scheme and therefore fell within Section 57B(2)(b).

Although the petitioners alleged absence of notice, the appellate civil court had found that Based Ali appeared on behalf of Hafeza and filed hajira, making it impossible to sustain the plea of total non-service and natural-justice violation.

The authority which passed the vesting order was not shown to lack statutory empowerment, and the dispute did not fall outside Section 57B(2).

Further, despite the form of the original civil suit, the present controversy principally related to statutory vesting and correction of land records rather than an independent title dispute beyond the competence of the revenue authorities.

Accordingly, the recognised exceptions to the jurisdictional bar were inapplicable.

The Tribunal’s refusal to direct the BL & LRO to act upon the civil court decree was therefore upheld.

WPLRT 70 of 2026 was dismissed, with no interference with the impugned Tribunal judgment.