1976 Supreme(Cal) 118

High Court Of Calcutta
N. C. MUKHERJI, BANKIM CHANDRA RAY
SUDARSHAN GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
JANAKINATH PANDIT - Respondent
Secondappeal 1630  Of  1964
Decided On : 03/24/1976

The jurisdiction conferred upon the officer or authority to determine the question whether a person is a bargadar or not if such question arises in deciding any of the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) is not exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of status.

Headnote:

WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 18(1), 18(2), 21 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - BARGADAR - TENANT - RES JUDICATA - The jurisdiction conferred upon the officer or authority to determine the question whether a person is a bargadar or not if such question arises in deciding any of the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) is not exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of status. The decision of the officer on this question is only for the purposes of the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. It is incidental to the decision of the disputes referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. The bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided in Section 21(1) of the Act is only with regard to the decision passed by the officer in regard to the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) of the Act as well as in regard to entertainment of suits in respect of any of the matters mentioned in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the decisions of Bhagchas cases were illegal, void and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for a declaration that the decision of the Bhaachas case was also illegal, void and without jurisdiction. In the said suit the plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the execution case pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Midnapore and from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands as well as for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit stating inter alia that 3. 60 acres of land comprised in C. S. plot No. 75 under Khatian No. 60 of Mouza Emua belonged to one Chandi Das Chakraborty who was then a minor. Chandi Das's father Bidhubhusan as his guardian settled 1. 80 acres of land out of the said land with the father of plaintiff at a rental of half share of the produce in 1348 B. S. and one Suresh Chakraborty, it was alleged, used to realise rents of the suit land on behalf of Chandi Das. The plaintiff's father possessed the suit land on payment of rent to owner. Subsequently the suit land was sold by Chandi Das to one Bagala Bhanja and plaintiff's father paid rent to him and possessed the said land as before. After his death sometime in 1351 B. S. or 1352 B. S. the plaintiff began to possess the suit land paying rent to Bagala Bhanja as before. The defendant purchased the said land from Bagala Bhanja by a kobala dated 5th of August, 1957. In the R. S. record of rights the plaintiff was recorded as a tenant under Bagala in respect of the said suit land but during attestation Bagala on taking advantage of his absence managed to get the said land recorded in the possession of the plaintiff as a Bhagchasi to the extent of 8 annas share since 1350 B. S. and one Iswar Barik was recorded as bargadar in respect of 8 annas of the suit land. Against the said wrong entry the plaintiff preferred an objection under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and got his name recorded as a tenant in respect of the said land. The defendant after purchasing the said land falsely started some Bhagchas cases. The plaintiff filed objection in the said Bhagchas cases contending that he was a tenant and not a Bhagchasi but owing to his default in appearing on the date of hearing the cases were decided ex parte against him and awards for delivering of Bhagchas paddy as well as for termination of his cultivation were made by the Bhagchas Officer. Against the said order Bhagchas Appeals Nos. 41 and 42 of 1959 were preferred. The appellate officer, however, did not uphold the contention of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was a Bargadar in respect of the suit land and remanded the case for eviction for re-trial. The defendant also filed another case being B. C. Case No. 14-K of 1960 and on suppressing notices obtained an ex parte award in his favour. The said award was put into execution in B. C. Ex. Case No. 5 of 1961-62. Hence, the said suit was filed claiming the reliefs stated before.

Finding of the Court:

The jurisdiction conferred upon the officer or authority to determine the question whether a person is a bargadar or not if such question arises in deciding any of the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) is not exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of status. The decision of the officer on this question is only for the purposes of the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. It is incidental to the decision of the disputes referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. The bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided in Section 21(1) of the Act is only with regard to the decision passed by the officer in regard to the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) of the Act as well as in regard to entertainment of suits in respect of any of the matters mentioned in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

Issues: Whether the jurisdiction conferred upon the officer or authority to determine the question whether a person is a bargadar or not if such question arises in deciding any of the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) is exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of status.

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction conferred upon the officer or authority to determine the question whether a person is a bargadar or not if such question arises in deciding any of the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) is not exclusive so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of status. The decision of the officer on this question is only for the purposes of the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. It is incidental to the decision of the disputes referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. The bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided in Section 21(1) of the Act is only with regard to the decision passed by the officer in regard to the disputes mentioned in Section 18(1) of the Act as well as in regard to entertainment of suits in respect of any of the matters mentioned in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed.