A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to refer a dispute raised by a party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC to the competent officer under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as the Magistrate is not required to decide the question of whether the party is a bargadar.

R. Bhattacharya, J. :- This revisional application has been directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate (Executive) of Rampurhat, passed in a proceeding under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. 1973. As the learned Magistrate was not able to ascertain which of the parties in the proceedings were in actual possession, he directed that the question as to whether the allegation of the first party-petitioners in the proceedings as to whether they are bargadars or not in the disputed land, be decided by a competent officer under S.21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners before us are two - (1) Kulfatum Bibi, opposite party No. 2 in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and (2) Mechher Sk., Petitioner No. 5 before the learned Magistrate.

2. It appears that originally an application under S.144 of the Cr. P.C. was filed by the opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 and petitioner No. 5 before us. Ultimately that proceedings was converted to one under S.145 of the Code by the learned Magistrate. At the time of hearing, several witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner-first party and some on behalf of the contesting second party, namely, opposite party No. 2 before the learned Magistrate. On consideration of the evidence the learned magistrate could not ascertain as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land, although the first party, namely, the petitioners before him alleged that they were bargadars. In this connexion it may be noted that out of the 5 petitioners, one, namely, the petitioner No. 2 before us, in the written objection stated before the learned Magistrate that he was not a party to the proceedings and that he has been made one of the petitioners before him by the petitioner No. 1 by forging his thumb impression. However, in this application we are not concerned with that allegation. The grievance of the petitioners before us is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute raised by some of the first parties, namely, whether they are bargadars or not, to the competent officer under S.21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

3. We have heard Mr. Das Gupta for the petitioners and Mr. Banerjee for the opposite parties.

4. In this case on perusal of the order complained against, we are of the view that the learned Magistrate misread the relevant provision of law and acted beyond jurisdiction to refer the question as to whether the first parties were bargadars or not, under S.21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

5. Under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate is to see which of the parties in dispute is in possession of the disputed property. He is not concerned to see whether any of the parties has right or title to the property to possess. It has been clearly indicated in sub-sec. (4) of S.145 of the Cr. P.C. that the Magistrate will apply his mind to the statements put in by the parties without any reference to the merits of the claims of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act runs as follows:-

"If any dispute as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar arises in course of any proceeding before any civil or criminal court it shall refer it to the officer or authority mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of S.18 for decision."

The relevant point in this sub-section is that if the question as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar arises for decision in any proceeding either in the criminal court or the civil court, then the mandate according to this sub-section is that the Court without deciding that question should refer the matter for decision to the officer or the authority mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of S.18. Section 18 refers to the jurisdiction of an officer or authority as the State Government may appoint to decide certain disputes mentioned therein. Now in the present case, although the first party raised a question claiming that they are bargad