A cousin (brother) cannot be declared as a bargadar under another cousin (brother) in respect of a joint property held by them in equal share.

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 21st December, 2012 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench in O.A. No. 810 of 2005 (LRTT) at the instance of the writ petitioner who was the applicant before the Tribunal. Two questions have cropped up for our consideration. Those are as follows:-

“1. whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to grant police help under the provision of the West Bengal Land

Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997,

2. Whether a cousin (brother) can be declared as Bargadar under his cousin (brother) in respect of a joint property held by the two cousin (brothers) in equal share.

Let us now decide the first question as indicated above.

Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 deals with jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal. The said section is set out hereunder:-

“Section 6- Jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal –– Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall, with effect from such date as may be appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf, exercise jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to ––

(a) any order made by an Authority under a specified Act;

(b) an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an Authority under a specified Act;

(c) an appeal against an order of the Mines Tribunal appointed under section 36 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953;

(d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any Act under the provisions of a specified Act;

(e) adjudication of matter, proceedings, cases and appeals which stand transferre3d from the High Court and other Authorities to the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

2. West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 is a specified Act. A dispute concerning the said Act was dealt with by the Tribunal in the present case. There is no provision in the specified Act which authorises the authority under the said Act to grant police help to any person.

3. As such, while dealing with such a specified Act we are of the view that the Learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant police help to the respondent No.4 herein. As such, the police help which was granted by the Learned Tribunal to the alleged Bargadar, the respondent No. 4 herein, for cultivation of the land in question, was illegal and without jurisdiction and as such, the order of granting police help to the respondent No.4 for cultivating the land in question is set aside.

4. Let us now consider the other issue which is indicated in question 2 above.

5. Admittedly, the land in question was originally held and/or owned by one Haricharan Naskar. He died leaving behind his two sons viz. Patal and Banamali as his only heirs under Hindu Law. The said two sons of Haricharan inherited ½ share each in the land in dispute. Subsequently, Patal died leaving his only son viz. Ajit, the respondent No.4 herein who inherited the share of Patal after his death. Similarly on the death of Banamali his only son viz. Bankim inherited the share of his deceased father in the said land in question. Thus, Ajit and Bankim two cousin (brothers) became the joint owners of the said land having equal undivided ½ share each in the said land.

6. Ajit, the cousin (brother) of Bankim was recorded as Bargadar under Bankim in the finally published L.R. record of rights. The said record of rights was finally published in 1977. Bankim, the petitioner herein, has questioned the legality of recording of Ajit’s name as Bargadar in respect of the said land in question. Though we find that the name of Ajit was recorded as Bargadar in the finally published record of rights but we do not find anything on record wherefrom we can come to the conclusion that the dispute as to whether Ajit was a Bargadar under Bankim in respect of the land in question was ever resolved by an