Back
1979 Supreme(Cal) 383
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. SEN, B. C. CHAKRABARTI
HARADHAN CHANGDAR - Appellant
Versus
JITENDRANATH HAMBIR - Respondent
C. R. 896 Of 1979
Decided On : 11/30/1979
BISWAJIT GHOSH, J.BHATTACHARJEE, R.P.BAGCHI, SNEHANAN DINDA
The jurisdiction of the civil court to pass suitable orders on an application for temporary injunction is not ousted by the provisions of Section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 21 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY - DISPUTE AS TO STATUS OF BARGADAR - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PASS INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sued for a declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming that the suit lands were in their khas possession, that the defendant No. 2 was engaged as a caretaker, and that the defendant No. 1, a nephew of defendant No. 2, managed to have his name recorded as a bargadar in the draft records during the revisional settlement operation. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be a bargadar under the plaintiffs and alleged that defendant No. 2 was in collusion with the plaintiffs. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The lower appellate court, while disposing of the appeal, directed a reference to the appropriate authority under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to determine the question of whether the defendant was a bargadar or not.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bar of jurisdiction imposed by Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not absolute. It only bars the jurisdiction of the court to decide the question of whether a person is or is not a bargadar if such a question is raised in the suit. In all other respects, the court retains jurisdiction over the suit. The court further held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted merely because a disputed question as to the status of the defendant who claims to be a bargadar is referred to the competent authority for decision.
Issues: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders on an application for temporary injunction in a suit where a question arises as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar and the said question is referred to the appropriate officer mentioned in Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that granting an injunction does not amount to a final adjudication of the dispute, and the plaintiff is not required to establish his title before he can legitimately ask for an order of injunction in his favor. The court also noted that the Land Reforms Act does not empower the officer to pass any order of temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application, affirmed the direction for making a reference to the appropriate authority for decision of the disputed issue as to the status of the defendant as claimed, but set aside the finding that the application for temporary injunction should pend till such decision is made. The matter was remitted to the lower appellate court for re-hearing and disposal of the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application at the instance of the plaintiffs is directed against an order dated Feb. 28, 1979 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1978, and raises a short though important point of law, viz. , whether in a suit where a question arises as to whether a person is of is not a bargadar and the said question is referred to the appropriate Officer mentioned in Section 18 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for decision, the Court has or has not the jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders on an application for temporary injunction.
( 2 ) FACTS relevant for the present purpose are simple. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 upon a claim that the suit lands were in the khas possession of the plaintiffs, that the defendant No. 2 was engaged as a care-taker to supervise the cultivation of the lands from the time of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, that the defendant No. 1 who is a nephew of defendant No. 2 managed to have his name recorded as a bargadar in respect of the suit lands in the draft records prepared during the revisional settlement operation and that he on the basis of such entry in the draft record but without having any interest whatsoever in the suit lands, was trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 however, claimed to be a bargadar under the plaintiffs and alleged further that defendant No. 2 was in collusion with the plaintiffs.
( 4 ) THE plaintiffs made an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge before whom the suit was filed, considered the prayer on its merits and found that the defendant was at best a caretaker and not a bargadar. The defendants took an objection that the suit was hit by Section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, but the learned Subordinate Judge thought that there was no such dispute between the parties requiring an adjudication by an officer appointed under Section 16 (1) of the said Act. On such findings the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the prayer for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession till the disposal of the suit.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by such decision the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge while disposing of the appeal incidentally referred to some documents upon which the trial Court had relied and found them to be inadmissible in evidence. But then he did not find that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an order for injunction on the case made out by them and on the materials placed before the Court. Instead he held that the dispute raised by the defendant was required to be referred under Section 21 (3) of the Act to the prescribed authority for determination of the question whether the defendant was a bargadar or not. Ho further observed that the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction should be disposed of in terms of the decision of the prescribed authority. In that view of the matter the appeal was allowed on contest with a direction upon the trial Court for making a reference to the prescribed authority.
( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have moved this Court in the present revisional application against the said appellate order.
( 7 ) SECTION 21 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act provides that no order of other proceedings under that Chapter shall be questioned in any Civil Court and no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioed in Sections 17 and 18. Sub-section (2) speaks of transfer of all pending proceedings before any Bhag-chas Conciliation Board to the officer or authority appointed under the Act for decision and Sub-section (3) of the said Act provides as follows:--" (3) If any question as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar ari
