Back
1975 Supreme(Cal) 295
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.
Chapala Bala Adhikary ….Petitioner
Versus
Monoranjan Das & ors. ....Opposite parties
Civil Revision Case no. 1540 of 1975
Decided on : September 23, 1975
Tarak Nath Roy and Samar Kumar Ghose ...for the petitioner
Aba Jabar M. S. Alam ...for the opposite party no. 1
Arun Kumar Motilal ...as Ambicus curiae
Sub-section (3) of section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, is applicable to suits and proceedings instituted before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1974, and it does not affect substantive rights but merely alters the procedure relating to suits and proceedings.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 21(3) - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION - REFERENCE OF QUESTIONS - PROCEDURE - DETERMINATION OF BARGADAR STATUS - CIVIL COURT'S POWERS - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS - APPEAL - SUBSEQUENT SUITS - CHALLENGING ORDERS UNDER SECTION 18(2) READ WITH SECTION 21(3).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction in respect of 1'20 acres of land. Defendant claimed to be a bargadar and requested a reference under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to determine his status. The trial court referred the question to the Bhagchas officer, staying further proceedings in the suit. Plaintiff challenged the reference order through a Rule.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that sub-section (3) of section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, which provides for the reference of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not to the officer or authority mentioned in section 18(1), is applicable not only to suits and proceedings commenced after the enactment of the amending Act of 1974 but also to suits and proceedings pending at the date of the commencement of the said amending Act.
Issues: 1. Whether sub-section (3) of section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, is applicable to suits and proceedings instituted before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1974. 2. Whether sub-section (3) of section 21 affects substantive rights or merely alters the procedure relating to suits and proceedings. 3. Whether the court is denuded of its powers to decide other questions and issues involved in a suit or proceeding by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 21. 4. The scope of sub-section (3) of section 21 in the context of suits and proceedings in civil courts. 5. The procedure for determination of the question of bargadar status under sub-section (3) of section 21 and the powers of the civil court after the determination of the question.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sub-section (3) of section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, is applicable to suits and proceedings instituted before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1974, as the sub-section clearly shows an intendment to apply whenever the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not arises. 2. Sub-section (3) of section 21 does not affect substantive rights but merely alters the procedure relating to suits and proceedings, as it changes the forum for decision of the question of whether a person is a bargadar or not. 3. The court is not denuded of its powers to decide other questions and issues involved in a suit or proceeding by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 21, as the sub-section only partially affects the jurisdiction of the Civil and Criminal Courts in suits and proceedings in so far as the question mentioned in sub-section (3) is concerned. 4. The scope of sub-section (3) of section 21 in the context of suits and proceedings in civil courts is that the court can only refer under sub-section (3) of section 21 those questions which come within the ambit of determination under section 18 (2), which indicates the scope of the said sub-section (3). 5. The procedure for determination of the question of bargadar status under sub-section (3) of section 21 is not laid down in detail in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or the Rules prescribed under the Act, but the officers or authorities in determining the question referred to them under section 21 (3) undoubtedly exercise quasi-judicial powers and are bound to act in consonance with the fundamental principles of justice. After the determination of the question, the court will proceed to determine remaining issues if and then to finally dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The Rule was discharged, and the order of the trial court referring the question of bargadar status to the Bhagchas officer was upheld.
Chapala Bala Adhikary who originally obtained the present Rule had instituted a suit against opposite party No. 1, Monoranjan Das, inter alia, for declaration, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of 1'20 acres of land in plot No. 388 of R.S. Khatian No. 2271 in Mouza Thuba. Her case inter alia what that one Harendranath Das who was a bargadar under her had executed a registered Esta-fanama in her favour on February, 23, 1959. Thereafter, she had been cultivating the land in question with the help of hired labourers who used to execute krishimajuri agreement each year in lieu of their remuneration. A portion of the suit land was described as a bamboo grove previously but the said grove was no longer in existence and the said portion was lying fallow. The defendant opposite-party had approached her for granting settlement was trying to disposses her from the suit land.
2. The learned Munsif, Second Court, Basirhat granted as ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff and issued a show cause notice upon the defendant. The defendant had entered into appearance and had filed a Written Statement in the suit, inter alia, claiming that he was a bargadar of the suit land. He had prayed before the trial court that the question whether he was a bargadar be referred under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the Bhagchas officer concerned. The plaintiff had opposed the said prayer. The learned Munsif by his order dated 21st September, 1974 referred to the Authority under section 18(1), the question whether the defendant Motilal Das was a bargadar in respect of the suit land in question under the plaintiff Chapala Bala Adhikary. The learned Munsif stayed the further proceedings in the suit till the receipt of the decision of the authority under section 18 (1) of the said question.
3. On 25th April, 1975 Chapala Bala Adhikary obtained the present Rule. The operation of the above order of the learned Munsif was stayed till the disposal of the Rule but the opposite party submitted before me that the Bhagchas Officer had already passed his order determining the question referred to him by the learned Munsif in favour of the defendant. The correctness of the said decision of the Bhagchas Officer is not the subject mater of challenge in the present Rule. The only question is whether the learned Munsif had acted within his jurisdiction by making the above reference under section 21(3) for decision of the question whether the defendant was a bargadar or not.
4. The opposite-party No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition dated 28th August, 1975 disclosed that the learned Munsif, Second Court, Basirhat by his order date the 6th May, 1975 had expunged the name of Chapala Bala Adhikary from the plaint of Title No. 171 of 1974 and had added Srimati Sudharani Das, minor Chandrajit Das, minor Ira Das and minor Sarajit Das, minors being represented by their natural guardian father, Sri Kalidas Das as plaintiff’s in the said suit. The suit added plaintiff’s have been described as the transferees from Chapala Bala Adhikary. In the above view, the aforesaid vendees of Chapala Bala Adhikary have been added as petitioners in the present Rule.
5. The suit out of which this Rule arises was instituted before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1574 which received assent of the President and was published in the Extraordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette, dated June 21, 1974. The section 7 of the said amending Act of 1974 by which sub-section (3) was inserted in section 21 did not expressly state that the sub-section (3) shall have retrospective effect. The first question in this Rule is whether the said sub-section (3) of section 21 would also apply to suits and proceedings instituted before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1974. This is turn raises the point whether sub-section (3) merely alters the procedure relating to suits and proceedings or e
