Back
1981 Supreme(Cal) 177
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
M.N. Roy, J.
Shri Probodh Chandra Samanta
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
C.R. No. 14484(W) of 1976
Decided On : May 18, 1981
Advocate Appeared:
Mrinal Kanti Das for the petitioner;
Probitta Kumar Basu for the respondents 1 to 4;
S.K. Bhattacharya, S. Badruzzaman for respondents 6-9 and 10-12.
The barga right is heritable under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the heirs of a deceased bargadar can continue with the cultivation. However, the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure are not universally applicable to proceedings under the Act, and the authorities under the Act cannot go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the Act.
Headnote:
BARGADARS - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL HEIRS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 15A, 19B - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS (BARGADARS) RULES, 1965 - RULE 2A - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - HERITABILITY OF BARGA RIGHT - PROCEDURE FOR NOMINATION OF LAWFUL HEIR - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER XXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Probodh Chandra Samanta, claimed to have purchased lands from Subal Chandra Chowdhury in 1970 and cultivated them as a bargadar. Respondents Nos. 6, 7, and 8, claiming to be the heirs of Nalinaksha Samanta, who was allegedly a bargadar under Subal Chowdhury, filed an application for substitution in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur, under Section 19B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the substitution order and the subsequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the barga right was heritable under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the heirs of a deceased bargadar could continue with the cultivation. However, the court also held that the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure were not universally applicable to proceedings under the Act and that the authorities under the Act could not go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the applications for substitution of legal heirs were maintainable under Section 19B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955? 2. Whether the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure were applicable to proceedings under the Act? 3. Whether the authorities under the Act could go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the applications for substitution of legal heirs were maintainable under Section 19B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, as the barga right was heritable and the heirs of a deceased bargadar could continue with the cultivation. 2. The court held that the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure were not universally applicable to proceedings under the Act. The court observed that the Act contained specific provisions for the determination of the rights of bargadars and jotdars, and that the intention of the Act was to provide a speedy and effective mechanism for resolving disputes relating to barga cultivation. 3. The court held that the authorities under the Act could not go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the Act. The court observed that the authorities under the Act were creatures of the Act and could only exercise the powers specifically granted to them by the Act.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, set aside the order of substitution, and directed the authorities to reconsider the subsequent application for nomination and pass necessary orders after hearing the petitioner.
This Rule, with the corresponding interim order was obtained on 8th December 1976, challenging the legality, validity or otherwise of the judgement and orders passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Visnupur, respondent No. 2, in Case No. 5, B.C.A. of 1974 and challenging further, all steps as taken thereunder.
2. It has been stated that lands comprised in Dog No. 5055 in Khatian No. 1869, of Mouza Jomkuri, in the District of Bankura, measuring more or less 2.21 acres (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), belonged to and was possessed in Khas, by one Shri Subal Chandra Chowdhury, son of late Ramsaday Chowdhury. It has been stated by the petitioner that prior thereto, there had never been any person under the said Shri Subal Chandra Chowdhury, who acted or could claim as a bargadar within the meaning of S. 2(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and it was the further case of the petitioner that in the relevant records, there was never any note or entry in respect of a bargadar. The petitioner had further stated that he, for the first time, in or about the year 1375 B.S., approached the said Shri Subal Chandra Chowdhury, for being engaged as a bargadar, in respect of the said lands and the said Shri Chowdhury having agreed, the petitioner cultivated the said lands as bargadar, for the years 1375 and 1376 B.S., and he delivered the landlord's share to the said shri Chowdhury, against receipts duly granted. It has also been stated that thereafter, on or about 21st March 1970, the petitioner, by registered Deed of Sale, purchased the said lands from said Shri Chowdhury for valuable consideration. He has also claimed himself to be a person of the locality, having personal know ledge about Khas cultivation of the said lands. It was the case of the petitioner that after such purchase, he cultivated the said lands in Khas and was in uninterrupted possession of them.
3. It has been alleged that while in such possession, the petitioner was surprised to receive the notice dated 1st June 1970, as issued from the office of the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sonamukhi, Bankura, in connection with his right to possess and cultivate the said lands. By the said notice, the petitioner was inter alia intimated that a hearing would be held on 8th June 1970, and he was directed to be present, with necessary evidence and records, in support of his case. This notice, has been claimed by the petitioner to be illegal, vague void and without jurisdiction, as according to him, under the provisions of the said Act, there was no scope for the issue of such vague and indefinite notice and furthermore as the conditions precedent for adjudicating a dispute under the said Act, had not been followed or complied with. It has also been stated that along with concerned notice, no copy of the application, on the basis whereof the said notice was issued, was served. It has of course, been stated by the petitioner that with great hardship, he could obtain the copy of the concerned application, which was filed by respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and such application, on a reference, would appear to have been addressed to Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sonamukhi, who had no jurisdiction to determine the same.
4. The officer concerned, in his turn, authorised the Circle Inspector concerned, to enquire into the matter and report. The said Circle Inspector, according to the petitioner, held an enquiry and submitted a report, stating that from the evidence adduced, he was on the opinion and he believed that the petitioner was in possession in 1375 and 1376 B.S. and still he was in such possession. It was the case of petitioner that the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned, after serving notice on both the parties and hearing them, directed that Probodh Chandra Samanta, the petitioner herein, would cultivate the said lands as usual in 1377 B.S. From such determination, one of the adversaries of the petitioner, preferred an a
