Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 837
High Court of Calcutta
Pratap Kumar Ray, Md. Abdul Ghani, JJ.
Tapan Kumar Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.L.R.T. No. 107 of 2011
Decided on : Jun 27, 2011
Z. Islam, Chandi Charan De, S.K. Md. Galib, Atarup Banerjee, Paromita Jati
Under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, only one person can be a bargadar in respect of a particular plot of land, and there is no concept of joint barga right.
Headnote:
BARGADAR - DEFINITION - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTION 2(2), 15A - INTERPRETATION - ONE BARGADAR PER PLOT - JOINT BARGA RIGHT NOT RECOGNIZED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to be bargadars (share-croppers) of certain plots of land and challenged the order of the Revenue Officer recording their names as bargadars in respect of only a portion of the land. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to be recorded as bargadars for the entire plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, only one person can be a bargadar in respect of a particular plot of land, and there is no concept of joint barga right. The court also held that the order of the Revenue Officer recording the petitioners' names as bargadars in respect of only a portion of the land was illegal.
Issues: Whether more than one person can be a bargadar in respect of a particular plot of land under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'bargadar' under section 2(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which states that a bargadar is a person who cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person. The court also relied on section 15A of the Act, which provides for the determination of the right of cultivation on the death of a bargadar. The court held that these provisions indicate that the legislature intended that only one person can be a bargadar in respect of a particular plot of land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Revenue Officer, the Appellate Authority, and the learned Tribunal below. The court also held that the Revenue Officer is not debarred from adjudicating the right of any one person as a bargadar in respect of one plot of land.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
1. HEARD learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. ASSAILING the order dated 31st January, 2011 passed in O.A. No. 899 of 2009 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, this writ application has been filed.
The impugned order reads such:
"31.01.11. The matter is taken up for hearing. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Private Respondent No. 7-12 and Learned Government Representative. The present petitioners challenged the order passed by the appellate authority on 25.08.2008 in connection with Appeal Case No. 55 of 2007. That was one under section 54 of WBLR Act. In this case 3 plots are involved namely .76 decimal of plot No. 96, 51 decimal in plot No. 97/473 and 9 satak in plot No. 98. It is to be mentioned here that the present petitioners claimed bargadar under Gour Chandra Koley and Ors. It is their case that they were possessing the said plots as bargadar under the said persons for a long period i.e. from 1989. It is the further case that they used to deliver share of the crop as well as fish to the owners for which receipts were granted which are in the form of "Sikarukti" and "Angikarpatra". Those are annexed and are at page 15 and 16. The lands in question were transferred in favour of the Private Respondent in the year 2007 and thereafter they filed application before the B.L. and L.R.O., Purbasthali-II, District-Burdwan, for recording their names. The B.L. and L.R.O. disposed of the application by passing order to the effect that name of the present petitioners be recorded with respect to 45 decimal of land in Dug No. 96. The other prayer was denied. Against the order passed the B.L. 8, L.R:0., one appeal was preferred whose No. has been mentioned earlier. The Appeal was transferred to the S.D.L. and L.R.O., who by order impugned i.e., 25.08.2008 affirmed the order passed by B.L. and, L.R.O. By the said order the S.D.L. and L.R.O., directed the B.L. and L.R.O. to pass order with respect to another application wherein prayer was made by the present petitioner to record their names as "permissive possessor". At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to at page 15 and 16 of the application and on the basis of the same it was contended that the previous owners admitted the present petitioners as bargadar for which those documents were executed. It is the further plea of the present petitioners that as that was nothing but admission by the previous owner the present petitioners will be bound to accept the same as after their purchase they have stepped into the shoes of the previous owner. It was the further prayer of the present petitioners that the B.L. and L.R.O., in his order mentioned the ward fit for "Boro cultivation". Accordingly it was contended that it is without jurisdiction of the B.L. and L.R.O. to mention those words as bargadar means and includes the name of persons who cultivate land. The said pleas were strongly opposed by Learned Private Respondent contended before us that the present petitioners also approached the Civil Court at Kalna by filing once case which is number as T.A. 17 of 2010 and the prayer of the present petitioners for interim injunction was rejected. During hearing it was revealed that the present petitioners failed to get any order of injunction and the said application was disposed of. Learned Government Representative raised objection regarding admissibility of the "Angikarpatra" and "Sikarukti" which are appearing at page 16 and 15. It goes without saying that under the WBLR Act the owner shall give receipt on getting the share of the crop and it is to be granted for every year. There is no provision in the L.R. Act for providing a single receipt for a period of more than 10 years. The said two documents, under the WBLR Act can never be accepted as receipt showing delivery of share of the produce to by the petitioners. The apprehension in the mind of this Tribunal th
