Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das
BHARAT CHANDRA MAITI - Appellant
Versus
GOUR CHANDRA ADAK - Respondent
Civil Rule 1123 Of 1951
Decided On : FEBRUARY 29, 1952
Bargadars Act - Dispute Resolution - The court found that the dispute in question did not fall under the matters referred to in Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, and as there was no Board established, the dispute could not be said to require a decision by a Board. The court also rejected the argument of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff obtained a Rule against an order staying the plaintiff's suit under Section 9(2) read with Section 18 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The defendant contended that he was a Bhagchasi, but the learned Munsif found otherwise. No Bhag Conciliation Board was established in the area where the properties were situated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order staying the suit was wholly unauthorized and set it aside, directing the learned Munsif to hear the suit as early as possible. The petitioner was awarded the costs of the Rule.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 9(2) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, the establishment of a Bhag Conciliation Board, and the contention of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The dispute did not relate to any matters referred to in Section 7(1) of the Act, and as there was no Board established, the order staying the suit was unauthorized. The court also held that Article 14 of the Constitution could not assist the opposite party.
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute, the order of the learned Munsif was set aside, and the learned Munsif was directed to hear the suit as early as possible. The petitioner was awarded the costs of the Rule, including a hearing fee of two gold mohurs.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the plaintiff against an order of Mr. J. C. Chakravartty, learned Munsif, staying the plaintiff's suit under Section 9 (2) read with Section 18 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The learned Munsif found negativing the defendant's contention that he was a Bhagchasi. It is not disputed that no Bhag Conciliation Board has been established in the area where these properties are situated. Section 9 (2) of the Act only applies to cases of disputes referred to in Section 7 (1) which requires to be decided by la Board referred to in that sub-section. The dispute 'which is now in question does not relate to any of the matters referred to in Section 7 (1) and as there is no Board established, the dispute, even if it came within Section 7 (1) cannot be said to be one which requires to be decided by a Board. In these circumstances, the order made by the learned Munsif staying the suit is wholly unauthorised.
( 2 ) IT was contended by Mr. Dey appearing for the opposite party that otherwise there will be a discrimination which will offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The discrimination, if any, will be between bargadars in an area where the Board had been established and Bargadars in an area where no such Board had been established. I do not think Article 14 of the Constitution can be of any assistance to the opposite party.
( 3 ) THE result therefore is that this Rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to hear the suit as early as posible. The petitioner will get the costs of this Rule, hearing fee two gold mohurs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
