Back
1989 Supreme(Cal) 175
High Court Of Calcutta
J. N. Hore
SUBAL CHANDRA MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
ATUL KRISHNA GHOSH - Respondent
S. A. 1657 Of 1973
Decided On : 04/11/1989
BIMAN KANTI BASU, Jamini Banerji, TAPAS KUMAR MUKHERJI
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit for declaration as to whether a person is a bargadar or not is not ousted by Section 21 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and Section 21 (3) of the said Act, which requires reference of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not to the prescribed authority, does not apply to the High Court.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 21 - SUB-SECTION 3 - REFERENCE TO AUTHORITY - HIGH COURT - CIVIL COURTS - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 18 - SUB-SECTION 2 - DISPUTE BETWEEN BARGADAR AND JOTEDAR - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - OUSTER - SCOPE AND EXTENT - SECTION 17 - TERMINATION OF CULTIVATION BY BARGADAR - GROUNDS - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND INJUNCTION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her title to the suit-land, declaration that the defendants were not bargadars, and permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession. The defendants claimed to be bargadars and filed an application before the J. L. R. O.-cum-Bhagchasi Officer and the settlement camp claiming themselves as bargadars and for recording their names as such in respect of suit-land falsely asserting that they were Bargadars. The defendants also threatened her with dispossession. During the pendency of the suit, the suit-land was recorded in the names of the defendants as bargadars under the plaintiff in a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. The Munsif decreed the suit for recovery of possession in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif. The defendants preferred a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title and injunction, as the dispute did not relate to any of the matters under Section 18 (1) of the Act. The Court further held that Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which requires reference of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not to the prescribed authority, does not apply to the High Court, and therefore, it was not necessary to refer the issue to the prescribed authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title and injunction? 2. Whether Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which requires reference of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not to the prescribed authority, applies to the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit for declaration as to whether a person is a bargadar or not is not ousted by Section 21 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, as the said provision only bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of orders passed under Chapter-III of the Act and disputes referred to in Clauses (a), (aa) and (b) in between bargadar on the one hand and the jotedar on the other. 2. The words 'civil Courts' in Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which requires reference of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not to the prescribed authority, do not include the High Court, as the said provision refers to Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the court below were affirmed.
( 1 ) SRIMATI Saralabala Ghosh, the original plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. 207 of 1968 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Ghatal for declaration of her title to the suit-land, further declaration that the principal defendants were not bargadars in respect of the same and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint by adding a prayer for recovery of possession, if it was found that she was out of possession. The plaintiff's case was that she purchased the suit-land and was in Khas possession thereof with the help of her laborers, In the Revisional Records of rights, the land was recorded in her name and she paid rent to the State of West Bengal. It was alleged that the principal defendants in collusion with her enemy camp had made an application before the J. L. R. O.-cum-Bhagchasi Officer as well as an application before the settlement camp claiming themselves as bargadars and for recording their names as such in respect of suit-land falsely asserting that they were Bargadars. The defendants also threatened her with dispossession.
( 2 ) THE principal defendants contested the suit alleging, inter alia, that they had been in possession of the suit-land as bargadars under the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the suit-land was recorded in the names of the defendants as bargadars under the plaintiff in a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act.
( 3 ) UPON a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Munsif disbelieved the defendant's story of Barga cultivation but found them to be in possession of the suit-land and accordingly passed a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif being Title Appeal No. 208 of 1970. During the pendency of the appeal Saralabala died and the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were substituted in her place. The learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapur who heard the appeal dismissed it and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif. Being aggrieved the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred this second appeal.
( 5 ) THE first point that has been urged by Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate for the appellant, is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It has been contended that Sub-section 1 of Section 21 read with Section 18 of the Land Reforms Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain such a declaratory suit as to whether the defendant is a bargadar or not.
( 6 ) SECTION 21 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 reads thus: "no order or other proceedings whatsoever under this Chapter shall be questioned in any Civil Court and no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioned in Sections 17 and 18". It would appear that sub-section. (1) of Section 21 which provides bar of Civil Court's jurisdiction contains two parts. First, it lays down that no order made by the authorities under Chapter-III can be questioned in Civil Court which would be debarred from entertaining any challenge in respect of any order passed under Chapter-III of the Act. Secondly, it lays down that in the matters of dispute referred to in Clauses (a), (aa) and (b) in between bargadar on the one hand and the jotedar on the other, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts stands ousted.
( 7 ) SECTION 18 of the Act provides:18 (1) Every dispute between a bargadar and the person whose land he cultivates in respect of any of the following matters, namely: (a) division or delivery of the produce, (b) termination of cultivation by the bargadar, (c) place of storing or thrashing the produce [omitted by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1970 (and then by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1972 with retrospective effect fro
