Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 511
High Court Of Calcutta
S.C. Sen & Arun Kumar Dutta, JJ.
Bibhuti Bhuban Nayak - Appellants
Vs
Executive Magistrate - Respondents
Decided on: Dec 17, 1993
M.K. Alam, Sitaram Bhattacharji,
The appellate authority's finding that the appellant did not personally cultivate the case land, leading to the termination of his barga cultivation, was based on proper consideration of the evidence and did not warrant interference by the writ court.
Headnote:
LAND REFORM - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORM ACT, 1955 - SECTION 18(1)(B) - TERMINATION OF BARGA CULTIVATION - GROUNDS - PERSONAL CULTIVATION - INTERPRETATION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's father was a bargadar (sharecropper) cultivating disputed land under the ownership of Kinkar Charan Sarkar and later his widow Tarubala Sarkar. After the bargadar's death, the appellant continued to cultivate the land as a bargadar on behalf of himself and other heirs of the deceased bargadar. Respondent No. 3 purchased the disputed land from Tarubala Sarkar and filed an application under Section 18(1)(b) of the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955, seeking termination of the appellant's barga cultivation on the ground that he did not personally cultivate the land. The application was allowed by the Bulagchas Officer (BCO) and upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellate authority's finding that the appellant did not personally cultivate the case land was based on proper consideration of the evidence and did not warrant interference by the writ court. The court further noted that the writ court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction to decide the correctness of findings of fact arrived at by the appellate authority under the relevant statute.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate authority erred in its finding that the appellant did not personally cultivate the case land, leading to the termination of his barga cultivation? 2. Whether the writ court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the findings of fact made by the appellate authority under the relevant statute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate authority's finding that the appellant did not personally cultivate the case land was based on proper consideration of the evidence and did not warrant interference by the writ court. 2. The writ court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction to decide the correctness of findings of fact arrived at by the appellate authority under the relevant statute.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
1. THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated the 6th September 1985 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court summarily dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, confirming the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 17th July, 1985 in case No. L. R. (A) 48 of 1979, on the grounds made out in the Memo of Appeal.
2. IT is contended by the Appellant-Writ petitioner (herein-after referred to as petitioner) that his father late Bejoy Krishna Nayak was bargadar in respect of the disputed C. S. plot Nos. 185 186 under Khatian No. 180 J. L. No. 142 within Mouza-Dakshin Battola, District 24-parganas admeasuring 4.23 acres of land under the owner thereof, Kinkar Charan sarkar. On the death of the said Kinkar Charan Sarkar his window Tarubala Sarkar inherited the said land and became the owner thereof. Both Kinkar Charan and Tarubala used to received the shares of bhag produce from his Butrga lar Bejoy Krishna, and grant receipts therefor. The said Bargadar had tried on 19th November, 1977 leaving behind the petitioner, Bibhuti Bhusan, his mother Hem Prova, his younger brother Hari Krishna, and four sisters, Gouiri Bala Nayak, Karuna Jana Gita pramanik and Jamuna Ojha as his legal heirs. The petitioner continued to ultimate the disputed lands as bargadar for himself and on behalf of the aforesaid other heirs of Bejoy Krishna under the said Tarubala Sarkar. He had as well filed applications against the said Tarubala under Section 18 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955 (herein-after shortened into Act) before the Bulagchas officer, Basanti, District-24-paraganas (hereinafter referred to as B. C. O) for acceptance of the owner's share of produce in 1978 and 1979 for the yeans 1384 and 1385 B. S, being B. C. case Nos. 52 of 1978 and 69 of 1978 respectively. The petitioner was directed to deposit the owner's share of produce of the disputed lands or the sale proceeds thereof to the State hank of India in terms of the orders dated 31. 8. 84 passed therein which he did. It subsequently transpired that the Respondent No. 3 Mst. Marjina khatun Bibi, had filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act on 10th October, 1974 before the B. C. O. concerned against the aforesaid recorded Bargadar Bejoy Krishna for termination of his cultivation of the disputed lands contending, inter-alia, that she had purchased the said lands from the said Tarubala Sarkar on 3rd June. 1974 corresponding to 20th Jaistha, 1381 B. S. being registered as bhagchas Case No. 81 of 1974. The heirs of the said Bejoy Krishna had also been subsequently impleaded therein. The said case had been allowed by the said B. C O. by his order dated 25th June, 1977 for the reasons recorded therein. On appeal being preferred there against by the petitioner, being L. R. Appeal no. 48 of 1979 before the sub-Divisional Officer at Alipore, 24-paraganas being the Appellate Authority under Chapter III of the Act the same was also heard by the Appellate Authority concerned, and dismissed by its judgment and order dated 17th July, 1985.
3. BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17th july, 1985 passed by the said Appellate Authority in the said L. R. appeal no. 48 of 1979, the petitioner had moved the relevant Writ Application before this Court which had also been summarily rejected by the learned single Judge of this Court by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 6th September, 1985. Hence the instant Appeal by the Writ-petitioner, Bibhuti bhusan Nayak.
4. UNDISPUTEDLY Bejoy Krishna Nayak was the recorded Bargadar in respect of the aforesaid disputed plot Nos. 185 and 186, under Khatian No. within Mouza-Dakshin Battola, District-24-paraganas, under the owner thereof Kinkar Charan Sarkar. On the demise of Kinkar Charan Sarkar, his widow Tarubala Sarkar became the owner thereof, and the said Bargadar had continued to cultivate the same under her. The Barga possession of Bejoy Krishna appears t
