Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 539
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
BISWANATH MAJI - Appellant
Versus
KARUNA SINDHU DEY - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 2150 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/07/2003
KESHAB CHANDRA DAS, SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYA
The civil court's jurisdiction to determine the question of bargadar status is barred by section 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act, and any dispute regarding bargadar status must be referred to the authority under section 18(1).
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 21 - SECTION 21B - PRESUMPTION OF BARGADAR STATUS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - REFERENCE TO AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 18(1) - ADMISSION OF BARGADAR STATUS IN WRITTEN STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, whose name was recorded as bargadar in the record-of-rights, filed a suit for declaration of his status as bargadar and injunction against the defendant from disturbing his cultivation rights. The defendant admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff cultivates his land but disputed his status as bargadar. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court remanded the case for reference to the authority under section 18(1) of the Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil court's jurisdiction to determine the question of bargadar status is barred by section 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The presumption of bargadar status under section 21b is rebuttable and the dispute raised by the defendant triggers the application of section 21(3). The admission of bargadar status in the written statement and evidence comes at the time of determining the dispute, which the civil court is incompetent to do. The appellate court rightly remanded the suit for reference to the appropriate authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to determine the question of bargadar status in light of section 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act? 2. Whether the presumption of bargadar status under section 21b is conclusive or rebuttable? 3. Whether the admission of bargadar status in the written statement and evidence can override the bar on civil court jurisdiction under section 21(3)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21(3) of the Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits or proceedings relating to matters covered under section 18. The determination of bargadar status falls under section 18(1) and is thus excluded from the civil court's jurisdiction. 2. The presumption of bargadar status under section 21b is rebuttable and can be contested by the defendant. Once the status is disputed, the matter falls within the ambit of section 21(3) and must be referred to the authority under section 18(1). 3. The admission of bargadar status in the written statement and evidence occurs during the determination of the dispute, which is beyond the civil court's jurisdiction under section 21(3). Such admission cannot confer jurisdiction on the civil court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The court declined to make any observations on the merits of the case or the effect of the admission of bargadar status in evidence. The trial court was directed to remand the case to the appropriate authority for determination of the bargadar status.
( 1 ) 1. Deficit Court fee has since been put in on 6th of November, 2003 vide Filing No. A-14522. The defect thus stands removed.
( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order of remand. The plaintiffs name was recorded in the record-of-rights as bargadar in respect of the suit property under the defendant. He claims a presumption under section 21b of the Land reforms Act and prayed for a declaration that he is a bargadar and for injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his exercise of right of cultivation as bargadar on the suit property. In the suit the defendant, in his written statement, had disputed the status of the plaintiff as bargadar. Issues were framed. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that'the plaintiff cultivates his land but disputed that he cultivates his land as barsadar. In the evidence the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is a bargadar under him in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the relief.
( 3 ) ON appeal the learned Lower Appellate Court had found that the Trial court had no jurisdiction in view of section 21 (3) of the Land Reforms Act and, therefore, remanded the case to the learned Trial Court for making reference under section 21 (2) of the Land Reforms Act and then to proceed with the suit.
( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant, at the time of admission, had raised an interesting question that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been taken away by section 21 only to the extent it has been expressly provided in the said section and not beyond. If it is a question of admission and there is a scope of presumption under section 21b, then according to him, even if disputed, there is no scope for any decision to be arrived at by the Court upon determination of the right. It is only when there is a dispute then only the question of reference would arise. According to him, in view of the fact that the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the record-of-rights and that the defendant had admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff had been cultivating the land under him, therefore, the presumption of section 21b is available to him and accordingly, there would be no question of determining the question since the question would remain no more a dispute referable under section 21 (3 ).
( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the Court cannot question the entries made in the record-of-rights. Once there is an entry in the record-of-rights as bargadar, there is no scope for any dispute to be decided or determined by the Court and in such a case section 21 (3) would not be attracted. According to him, that there was no dispute, is apparent from the fact that the defendant had admitted in course of his evidence that the plaintiff is a bargadar under him. Thus the order of remand is wholly erroneous.
( 6 ) MR. Bhattacharya then contended that even if assuming but not admitting, the case is referable under section 21 (3), in that event, the Appellate Court itself could have done so instead of remanding the case so as to shorten the proceedings.
( 7 ) THE entries made in the record-of-rights cannot be questioned by the civil Court. The entry in the record-of-rights has a presumptive value. But such presumption is rebuttable. When such presumption is disputed, the matter comes under section 21 (3 ). Similarly, section 21b raises a presumption coupled with the admission in the written statement that the plaintiff cultivates the defendant's land. The presumption, under section 21b, would be effective and binding for the purpose of determining the question as to whether there is a relationship of bargadar between the parties. But section 21 sub-section (1)bars the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit or proceedings if it relates to any matter covered under section 18. Section 18 (1) admittedly relates to the matters covered under clauses (a) to (c) and not otherwise. But it ca
