The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to land reforms, including pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

( 1 ) IN the twin revisional applications under Article 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner has sought to assail the orders dated november 21, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, second Fast Track Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal Nos: 33/ 2004 and 31/2004 setting aside the orders of pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Serampore in Misc. Case Nos. 46/93 and 47/ 93 respectively.

( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the above applications are that the petitioner obtained orders of pre-emption under Section 8 of the West bengal Land Reforms Act in respect of 'kha' Schedule property as a contiguous landowner against O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 (in C. O. No. 567/2007)and O. P. No. 1 (in C. O. No. 568/2007 ). The learned Court'of appeal below reversed the said orders holding on the basis of a decision of the apex Court that the law of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is void as it infringes the fundamental right to hold, acquire or dispose of property guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has landed in this Court.

( 4 ) SINCE identical question of law and fact are involved, both the applications were heard together for the sake of convenience and gravity and in order to avoid repetition.

( 5 ) MR. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on referring to paragraph-8 of the case of Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, reported in AIR 1962 sc 1476 submitted that the learned Court of appeal below misread and misconstrued the said decision, since the question of unreasonable restriction was held to be applicable only in case of urban land and house property where the question of consolidation of holding is not involved, and as such when his client is undoubtedly a contiguous landowner and the application is well within the period of limitation, there was no justification on the part of the learned Court of appeal below for upsetting the decision of the learned Trial Court. Mr. Das relying upon a Division bench decision of this Court in Pashupati Adhikari v. Pradyut Kumar, reported in 2004 CWN 72 (para 17) canvassed that despite Constitution of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal under the West bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Act, 1997, the exclusion clause in the act of 1997 will not be applicable so far as any order of judicial authority is concerned whose orders cannot be made subject to the order of Tribunal.

( 6 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the O. Ps. , on the other hand, on referring to the case of Bhau Ram (supra) contended that the law of preemption based on vicinage which is meant to prevent strangers from acquiring property is an unreasonable restriction on right to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed under Article 1. 9 (1 ) (f) of the constitution, and is void, and so the impugned order may not be interfered with. Mr. Ghosh, on referring to different provisions of the West Bengal land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 and relying upon the case of State of West Bengal v. Ashish Kumar Roy, reported in 2005 (10) SCC 110 and an unreported decision of this Court rendered on 27. 07. 2006 in c. O. No. 1586 of 2006, Sailendra Nath Sadhukhan and Another v. Pradip kumar Sengupta and Others, demonstrated that when a Tribunal has been constituted under the said Act with all the powers, jurisdiction and authority, the said Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction to decide the disputes in relation to the acts specified in the above Act.

( 7 ) INHERENT lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of jurisdiction or competence of a Court to decide a case. So, the issue relating to jurisdiction deserves to be taken up first since if it is found ultimately that this Court lacks jurisdiction, the question of entertaining or deciding the matter on merit by this Court would not arise.

( 8 ) THE West Bengal Land Reforms and Te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document