The Revenue Officer and the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the private opposite parties under Section 50(e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act claiming bargadari right, as the Revenue Officer is not empowered to make any independent finding and is required to revise the record of right on the basis of orders passed by other competent authorities.

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) ALL these applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise from the appellate Court's order passed by the Collector, L. R. affirming the orders passed by the Revenue Officer, Arsha L. R. Circle. The private opposite parties filed an application under Section 50 (e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for effecting necessary corrections in the record of right by entering their names as bargadars over the disputed property. It is claimed by the applicant that the property in question has all along been in her cultivating possession and she has been undertaking agricultural work through her labourers. In the final record of right her name also stands recorded where- 2 under it has been shown to have been under her possession. It is stated by the applicant that some of her agents keeping a greedy eye over the property with a purpose to snatch the disputed land mischievously filed applications before the Bhag Chas Officer firstly claiming to be a bargadar u / S. 50 (e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. It is further stated that the private opposite parties are her close relation who could not have claimed her bargadari right over the disputed plot. The opposite party No. 2 illegally recorded the name of the private opposite parties as bargadars over the disputed property. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent / opposite party No. 3 but the appellate Court also without considering the plea of the applicant had illegally affirmed the orders of Bhag Chas Officer. Therefore, the applicant being aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities, has preferred this case.

( 2 ) MR. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has argued in support of the application that in this case the private opposite parties have utterly failed to establish that they are bargadars in respect of the disputed plots. It was, further, strenuously urged that the private opposite parties had not led any evidence showing the payment of bhag or rent to the applicant at any time. The Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority, without considering those aspects in their proper perspective have illegally passed an order upholding them as the bargadars in respect of the disputed plots. In course of submission he also highlighted that in this case the Revenue Officer should not have invoked his power under Section 50 (e) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act inasmuch as it was not a suo motu proceeding which was initiated only on an application filed by the private opposite parties. It is further contended that though an explanation to Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was appended after a Bench decision of this Court the import of such explanation was subsequently considered by a Bench decision of this Court and it was held to be invalid. Therefore, the jurisdiction which was invoked by the Revenue Officer u / s. 50 (e) was seriously challenged. Laying emphasis on the decision reported in (1994) 1 Cal LJ at page 426 in the case of Kazi Arsedar Rahaman v. State of West Bengal, Mr. Dey has argued that the Revenue officer as well as the appellate authority went wrong in considering the application filed by the opposite parties who had claimed as bargadars by filing an application to that effect.

( 3 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, has contended that in an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court should exercise its jurisdiction sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Even there may be some error regarding the facts of the case, but while deciding the case under Article 227 of the Constitution such question need not be again scrutinised by this Court or the evidence adduced by the parties need be appraised. In the instant case the authorities below after seriously considering the submissions of both parties having already held the private opposite parties

Click Here to Read the rest of this document