Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1979 DIGILAW 359 (CAL)

In re: Sm. Nanda Rani Biswas v. .

1979-11-05

GANENDRA NARAYAN RAY

body1979
Judgment This revisional application is directed against judgment dated 11th of Ausust, 1979 passed by the Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Nadia in Appeal No. 6 of 1979-80 under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, affirming the adjudication dated 13th of April, 1978 and 24th of April, 1978, both passed by the Revenue Officer, Settlement Sadar, North B. Camp, Krishnagar in Case No. LR 11/Karimpur/suo-moto/78 under section 14-S and 14-T of Chapter II(B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 2. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, an appeal shall lie to the Collector of the District when the order is made by the Revenue Officer or Revenue Authority below the rank of a Collector of a District. He further submits that under sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the said Act wherein an appeal is preferred to a Collector of the district, he may transfer the appeal to any officer subordinate to him not being below the rank of a Sub-Deputy Collector. In the instant case, the appeal was preferred before the Collector of the District under Section 54 of the Land Reforms Act but the Collector in exercise of its powers under sub-section (3) of Section 54 transferred the appeal to the Sub-Deputy Collector who as aforesaid, disposed of the appeal. Mr. Dutta contended that although under sub-section (3) of Section 54, the Collector is authorised to transfer an appeal preferred before him but there is no specific provision by which such transferee officer has been authorised to hear the appeal. Mr. Dutta contended that the appeal being a creature of statute there must be specific provision for preferring an appeal and there should also be a provision for hearing such appeal by proper appellate authority. In this connection Mr. Dutta referred to the provision of section 32 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision B) Act, 1950. Mr. Dutta contended that the appeal being a creature of statute there must be specific provision for preferring an appeal and there should also be a provision for hearing such appeal by proper appellate authority. In this connection Mr. Dutta referred to the provision of section 32 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision B) Act, 1950. In the said Act provisions for appeal and review were made under Section 32 of the Act, in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the said Act, it has been provided that in respect of premises within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court an appeal shall lie to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, who shall entertain and hear the appeal in the capacity of a judicial officer as described in paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (ii) of Schedule B, with power to transfer as provided therein and the Court to which the appeal is transferred shall also here it in the capacity of a judicial officer as therein described. Mr. Dutta by referring the aforesaid provisions of the 1950 Act contended that it was expressly made clear in the said provision that the transferee officer will also hear the appeal in the capacity of a judicial officer. But in the instant case, sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act authorises the Collector to transfer the appeal preferred to him but there is no provision authorising the transferee authority to hear and dispose of the appeal. Mr. Dutta submitted that this is a lacuna in the Act and in the absence of any specific provision authorising the transferee officer to hear and dispose appeal, it should be held that transfer authority was not authorized to hear the appeal by any provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 3. I am however unable to accept this contention of Mr. Dutta. On a transfer of an appeal by the sppellate authority namely, the District Collector under sub-section (3) of section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, it is quite apparent that the transferee authority is also clothed with the power to hear and dispose of the appeal so transferred. Dutta. On a transfer of an appeal by the sppellate authority namely, the District Collector under sub-section (3) of section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, it is quite apparent that the transferee authority is also clothed with the power to hear and dispose of the appeal so transferred. If the said transferee officer is not empowered to hear the appeal although the appeal can be transferred to him, there would be no sense in transferring the appeal to him and the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act will be nugatory and meaningless. The only reasonable interpretation of section 54 of the Act will be that by transferring the appeal to the officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Land Reforms Act, the officer concerned is also empowered to hear and dispose of the appeal and such authority to hear and dispose of the appeal is there by necessary implication and to make the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Act meaningful. Section 32(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary provisions) Act, 1950 only lays down that the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, who shall entertain and hear the appeal and also the other officer to whom the said appeal is transferred by the Chief Judge will hear and dispose of the appeal not as person a designata but as Judicial Officer. Accordingly the aforesaid contention of Mr. Dutta that the Sub-Deputy Collector had no authority to hear and dispose of the appeal fails. Mr. Dutta next contended that vires of the provisions of Chapter II(B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act were challenged before this Court but this Court ultimately held that the said provisions are intra vires the Constitution of India. Mr. Dutta contends that appeal has since been taken before the Supreme Court of India against the decision made by this Court and such appeal is pending before the Supreme Court and as such no effect should be given to the said adjudication made by this Court holding that the provisions of Chapter II(B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act are intra vires the Constitution. I am however unable to accept this contention of Mr. Dutta. I am however unable to accept this contention of Mr. Dutta. So long the decision made by this Court is not set aside by the Supreme Court, the said decision has a binding force and I am bound by the said decision of this court and simply because an appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court, the position will not be altered. 4. Mr. Dutta next contended that the Appellate Tribunal in any event misread the evidences and on such misreading the impugned appellate order was passed and as such the said order should be set aside. Even assuming that the appellate authority failed to appreciate the evidence properly and misread the evidences, it does not appear to me that any injustice has been caused in this case and there is no reason to interfare under Article 227 of the Constitution against any erroneous finding of fact. I have considered the judgments of the tribunals below and the summary of the evidence noted by the first tribunal which is admitted to be correct, and it appears to me that the tribunals below were right in not placing reliance on the evidences adduced by the parties so far as the adoption of the son of one Sri Ajit Kumar Biswas is concerned. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution and this application is dismissed.