A party who has availed remedies under an Act cannot challenge its validity in the same proceeding or at a subsequent stage.

( 1 ) THESE are thirty Rules, taken out by the same or different owners of different plots of lands, so long cultivated by Bargadars under, them and are directed against orders passed by the Appellate Officer, in appeals by the Bargadars whereby orders passed by the Board, directing restoration of possession of the lands concerned to the petitioners were set aside. The principal ground on which the orders are challenged is that the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, is ultra vires, being violative of Articles 19 (l) (f), 19 (l) (g) and 31 (2), Constitution of India. The Rules were issued by one of us, but when they came up for final hearing, it appeared to him that it would be more advantageous, to have the important questions involved in the cases decided by a larger Bench. There were two reasons why that course appeared to be preferable. One was that the question of the alleged invalidity of the Act was one of fundamental importance and the same question was involved in a large number of cases actually pending and would, in all probability, arise in a larger number of cases which would come up in future. The other reason was that there had already been a decision by a Division Bench of this Court which had held the Act to be intra vires and the learned Judge before whom the Rules came up for hearing, thought that if, on the cases as a whole or in respect of certain of the points involved, he found himself unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench it would be embarrassing for him either to express or to give effect to his own opinion. In those circumstances, he referred the cases to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench. Thereafter, the present Bench was constituted.

( 2 ) THE cases out of which the Rules have arisen are all of the same pattern and the essential facts may be said to be common. It may be that the dates of the applications made to the Board are different and it may also be that the grounds on which the applications were based were not the same in all cases; but so fat as the attack on the Act is concerned, it may be said to be based on a set of facts common to all the cases.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, those facts are as follows. In the first instance, the Bargadars made applications to the Board established under the Bargadars Act for orders for the division of the produce in accordance with the provisions of Section 3. Those applications were allowed, but the owners, who are the petitioners before us, being dissatisfied, preferred appeals. The appeals were allowed in part, but it is alleged that during the time the appeals were pending, the Bargadars violated an order for stay made by the Appellate Officer and forcibly took away a larger share of the produce than was subsequently allowed to them.

( 4 ) THE next thing which happened was that the petitioners before us who, as I have already said, are the owners of the lands concerned, made applications before the Board for restoration of the lands to them on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of Section 5 (1) of the Act. They alleged that they required the lands bona fide for cultivation by themselves; further, that the Bargadars had wilfully neglected to cultivate the lands property; and thirdly, that they had, also failed to comply with the order for stay passed by the Appellate Officer and had, in fact, violated it. The Board allowed the applications, but did so only on one of the grounds. They chose Clause (d) of Section 5 (1) and held that inasmuch as the Bargadars had disobeyed the order of the Appellate Officer, the owners were entitled to have the lands restored to them.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the Bargadars preferred appeals to the Appellate Officer and those appeals were allowed. The orders made by the Board were set aside and it was directed that the Bargadars would continue to cultivate the lands as before. It was against those orders that the petitioners moved this Court under Article 226