Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 107
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J.
Benay Krishna Mondal
vs.
Aswini Kumar Baur & Ors.
C.O. No. 1316 of 1991
Decided on : March 30, 1994
Nibaran Kumar Das for the petitioner;
Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Dilip Kumar De for the opposite parties.
The Bhagchas Officer has no authority to restore a case which he had disposed of under s. 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 18 - RESTORATION OF CASE - Bhagchas Officer has no authority to restore a case which he had disposed of under s. 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landowner, filed a Bhagchas case for recovery of owner's share of bhag produced. The case was compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 to 4, who were described as bargadars. The Bhagchas Officer disposed of the proceeding in terms of the solenama. Later, the Bhagchas Officer restored the case and dismissed the petitioner's claim. The Appellate Officer affirmed the Bhagchas Officer's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Bhagchas Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction in restoring the case after it was disposed of as he had no authority under the law to do the same. The Appellate authority having affirmed the aforesaid order of the Bhagchas Officer the order dated 21.2.91 also cannot be sustained.
Issues: Whether the Bhagchas Officer has a right to restore a case which he had disposed of under s. 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: There is no express or implied power in the Bhagchas Officer to set aside an exparte award or order made by him under s. 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The whole purpose of the Act is that disputes relating to Bargadars and jotedars should be decided expeditiously and not with the complications of a civil suit. Ss. 18 and 19 form a complete code for disposal of matters mentioned in Ss. 17 and 18 of the Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The Revisional application is allowed. The order dated 14.7.87 passed by the Bhagchas Officer and the Appellate Court's order dated 21.2.91 affirming the said order of the Bhagchas Officer cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside.
Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J. : This revisional application is directed against order dated 21st February, 1991 in L.R. Appeal Case No. 68/87-88 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour, District 24-Parganas (South) by which he affirmed the order dated 14th July, 1987 passed by the Bhagchas Officer under s. 18 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, Mathurapur, South 24-Parganas in Case No. 36 of 1987.
2. The short point that comes up for consideration in this matter is whether the Bhagchas Officer has a right to restore a case which he had disposed of under s. 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
3. The petitioner admittedly is the owner of land in plot No. 3576 in Khatian No. 2207 measuring 1.33 decimals of land of mouza Dighirpar Bakultala under P. S. Mathurapur, Dist. 24-Parganas (South). For recovery of the owner's share of the bhag produced for the period of 1391 B.S. and 1392 B.S. the petitioner filed Bhagchas Case No. 26/87 which ended in a compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 to 4 who were described as bargadars in the said matter. By his order dated 24th April, 1987 the learned Bhagchas Officer disposed of the said proceeding in terms of the solenama. Thereafter, it appears, by order dated 14.7.87 that case was again put up before him and from the enquiry report submitted by the C.I. he found that the opposite party No. 1 Aswini Kumar Baur was really a bargadar and he cultivated the land in question and he accordingly by the said order restored the Bhagchas case and disposed of that case again by dismissing the claim of the petitioner for his owner's share from opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 for 1391 B.S. and 1392 B.S. Thus though the Bhagchas Officer initially disposed of the matter by this order dated 24.4.87 in favour of the petitioner and granted relief in terms of the solenama decree against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by subsequent order dated 14.7.87 he rejected the petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Bhagchas Officer an appeal was preferred under s. 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the learned Appellate authority that is, the Sub-divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour and the Appellate Officer by his order dated 21.2.91 affirmed the order of the Bhagchas Officer.
4. Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Appellate authority dated 21.2.91 was not in accordance with law and he had committed jurisdiction error in confirming the order of the Bhagchas Officer as the Bhagchas Officer had no authority under the law to restore the Bhagchas case which had already been disposed of.
5. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate for the O.P. No. 1 however, submitted that the Bhagchas Officer had the authority to restore a case which has already been disposed of by him in view of the fact that the real bargadar had not been made a party intentionally and the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 acted in collusion with each other for the purpose of depriving the real bargadar of his own right. He accordingly contended that the learned Appellate Officer rightly affirmed the order of the Bhagchas Officer.
6. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates of both the sides, on a careful reading of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Bhagchas Officer it appears that a dispute was raised about the delivery of Bhag produced and it also appears that the matter was compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. It also appears by his order dated 24.4.87 the Bhagchas Officer disposed of the case in terms of the solenama. This Court is not concerned with the question whether the compromise was effected by way of collusion between the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The only point of law involved in this matter is, as I have stated earlier is whether after the disposal of the case by his order dated 24.4.87 the Bha
