Back
1971 Supreme(Cal) 106
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. N. Dutt, A. K. De
HAJI MAHABUB HOSSAIN - Appellant
Versus
BISWANATH NANDY - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 424 Of 1971
Decided On : APRIL 20, 1971
Arun Kumar Janah, ARUNA MUKHERJEE, B.C.Mitter
A Revenue Officer, as a tribunal, does not have the inherent jurisdiction to make an order of injunction under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Pre-emption - Injunction - Revenue Officer - Jurisdiction - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, Sections 8, 9, 10, 57 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151, Order 39, Rule 2 (3).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, lessees of certain lands, challenged the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer to issue an ad interim injunction restraining them from manufacturing bricks, constructing a kiln, and erecting a chimney on the lands in question, as well as from changing the character of the lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Revenue Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the West Bengal Land Reforms Act did not confer such powers on the Revenue Officer.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Officer had the jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Sections 8, 9, 10, and 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and found that the Revenue Officer was not designated as a court and was not given all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also held that the inherent power of a tribunal to correct its own mistakes cannot be the basis for creating a new jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court made the Rules absolute, set aside the ad interim injunctions granted by the Revenue Officer, and vacated the subsequent orders directing the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 1 ) THESE two Rules are taken up together as the same question is involved in both the cases. One Touhid Ahmed Khan, Mutwali of Khan Saheb Abdul Ajij Khan Wakf Estate, was the owner of Hot No. 815 of mouza Bagbari with an area of 18. 75 acres. On January 24, 1969, he sold 3. 25 acres out of the plot on its south to Biswanath Nandy. Then on August 21, 1970, the petitioners in both the cases took lease of 11. 32 acres out of the plot on the southern side and again on August 25, 1970, took lease of the other 4. 18 acres of the plot from the said Touhid Ahmed Khan. Subsequently, Biswanath Nandy, who is opposite party No. 1 in both these cases, filed two applications under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, before a Revenue Officer for pre-emption of these transfers in favour of the petitioners -- pre-emption cases Nos. 92/70 and 97/70. Opposite party No. 1 further prayed for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners from manufacturing bricks, constructing kiln and/or erecting chimney on the lands of which pre-emption was sought and also from changing the character of the lands. The Revenue Officer on September 29, 1970, granted an ad interim iniunction against the petitioners as prayed for. Subsequently, on November 16, 1970, opposite party No. 1 filed applications in both the cases alleging that the petitioners had violated the ad interim order of injunction issued by the Revenue Officer. The petitioners were thereupon directed by the Revenue Officer to show cause why necessary action should not be taken against them under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners have thereafter obtained these Rules against these orders of the Revenue Officer.
( 2 ) MR. Janah, who appears for the petitioners before us, first contends that the lands concerned are bagan lands and not agricultural lands and so. Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not attracted and the applications before the Revenue Officer were incompetent. A decision on this question will depend on ascertainment of certain questions of fact, namely, whether the lands are bagan lands or agricultural lands and so on. We do not, therefore, think that at this stage without further materials we are in a position to consider this objection. This question is, therefore, left open.
( 3 ) MR. Janah then argues that the Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to issue an order of injunction either under Section 151 or under Order 39 of the Code. Mr. Mitter, who appears for the opposite party No. 1 before us, on the other hand, contends that the Revenue Officer is competent to make an order of injunction. Under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act the Revenue Officer has been given certain powers to decide the question of pre-emption under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act. The Revenue Officer has been given the powers as Revenue Officer. He is not designated as a Court there. Section 57 of the Act states that the Revenue Officer shall in dealing with proceedings under the Act exercise the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and the production of records or documents or in enforcing or executing the orders including an order for restoration of possession as if such orders were decrees of a civil court. Section 57 does not in terms confer on the Revenue Officer the powers under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Code. Opposite party No. 1, however, made the applications for ad interim injunction under Section 151 and Order 39 of the Code and, as we have said, the Revenue-Officer directed the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) of the Code. Clearly, therefore, the Revenue Officer purported to act under Section 151 and/or Order 39 of the Code. Mr. Mitter submits that Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not exhaustive but just illustrative. But when we read th
