Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, P. N. MUKHERJEE
GIRISH CHANDRA MAJHI - Appellant
Versus
GIRISH CHANDRA MAITY - Respondent
Civil Revn Case 1259 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 19, 1951
BARGADARS ACT - TERMINATION OF CULTIVATION - SECTION 5 (1) (A) - DESIRE OF OWNER TO CULTIVATE LAND - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT NOT NECESSARY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 5 (1) (A) - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 227, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an owner of land cultivated by a bargadar, applied to the Conciliation Board under Section 7 (1) (c) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, for permission to terminate the barga cultivation and take over possession of the land. The Board rejected the application, finding that the petitioner's intention was 'vindictive.' The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Officer, who also rejected the application, finding that the petitioner had 'no bona fide desire to cultivate his land.' The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a rule under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board and the Appellate Officer had erred in applying and administering Section 5 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, with certain supplementary provisions added to it by themselves. The court found that the Act only requires the owner to desire to cultivate the land by himself or through certain specified agencies, and that there is no requirement of a bona fide requirement or need for the land. The court also found that the Board and the Appellate Officer had erred in their findings of vindictiveness and lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board and the Appellate Officer erred in applying and administering Section 5 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, with certain supplementary provisions added to it by themselves? 2. Whether the Board and the Appellate Officer erred in their findings of vindictiveness and lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Board and the Appellate Officer had erred in applying and administering Section 5 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, with certain supplementary provisions added to it by themselves. The court found that the Act only requires the owner to desire to cultivate the land by himself or through certain specified agencies, and that there is no requirement of a bona fide requirement or need for the land. The court also found that the Board and the Appellate Officer had erred in their findings of vindictiveness and lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner. 2. The court held that the Board and the Appellate Officer had erred in their findings of vindictiveness and lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner had simply done what the Board had told him he ought to do, if he wanted to take the lands back, and that there was no evidence of vindictiveness or lack of bona fides.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, set aside the orders of the Board and the Appellate Officer, and directed the Board to allow the petitioner's application for termination of the barga cultivation and to authorize him to resume possession of the land.
( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against two orders under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, one by a Conciliation Board passed under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act and another by the Appellate Officer, confirming the Board's order. By the said orders the Board and the Appellate Officer have rejected an application of the petitioner to recover from the opposite party some land held by the latter as a Bargadar under him.
( 2 ) THE opposite party holds three plots of land under the petitioner as a Bargadar and we are informed that the barga settlement was taken about three or four years ago. Towards the middle of 1950, when the provisions of the West Bengal Bargadars Ordinance had not become generally known, the petitioner intimated to the opposite party his intention to terminate the barga settlement and to take over the possession of the land. Thereupon, on 17-6-1950, by which date the West Bengal Bargadars Act had been passed and had come into force, the Opposite Party made an application to the Sutahata Bhag Chasi Conciliation Board under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was trying to enter upon the land without obtaining the permission of the Board. That application came to be heard by the Board in due course after notice had been served on the petitioner and was disposed of by an order passed on 9-7-1950. The Board held that the petitioner was trying to take over possession of the land without obtaining the permission of the Board, which was illegal and, in that view, made an order that he would not be allowed "to terminate the cultivation by the bargadar. " This order was in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act which is to the following effect :" Provided that the cultivation of such land by a bargadar shall not be terminated on any of the above grounds except under the order of a Board. "
( 3 ) THE next step taken by the petitioner was that on 28-1-1951, he did what he had, on the former occasion, omitted to do, that is, he filed an application before the Board in which he set out his desire to cultivate the land by himself or by members of his family or by servants or by labourers and asked for an order, permitting him to terminate the cultivation of the land by the opposite party. That application was disposed of by the Board on 11-3-1951, when it was rejected. The finding of the Board was that the intention of the petitioner in asking for restoration of the land was ' vindictive. ' The reasons given in support of the finding were that the petitioner owned considerable tracts of land, all of which he was unable to cultivate by himself and portions of which he had let out to other bargadars and, further, that the real reason why the petitioner had made the particular application appeared to the Board to be that the opposite party had incurred the petitioner's displeasure by resisting his attempt to take over possession of the land on the previous occasion.
( 4 ) FROM the order of the Board the petitioner took an appeal to the Appellate Officer. The Appellate Officer found that the petitioner had " no bona fide desire to cultivate his land" and supported his conclusion by reference to the finding of the Board which, in his opinion, was "conclusive. " He referred further to an admission said to have been made before him by the petitioner that he had ''given a part of his land in Bhag to one Kali Bagh. " That, observed the Appellate Officer, was not indicative of any genuine desire on the part of the petitioner to cultivate his own land and he concluded that the petitioner had no such " bona fide desire. "
( 5 ) IT is against the two aforesaid orders that the present rule is directed.
( 6 ) BEFORE I deal with the grounds upon which the authorities below have rejected the petitioner's application, it is necessary to point out the explanation given by the petitioner before this Court of the admission alleged to have been made by him before the Appel
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
