JUDGMENT 1. THE Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 as plaintiff brought a suit being O. S. No. 208 of 1979 in the 2nd court of the learned Munsif at Jangipur, Murshidabad, against the petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also for other reliefs in respect of the suit property inter alia, on the allegations that the land comprised in Dag No. 2 in Khatian no. 74 under Mouza Suryapur, p. S. Sagardihi, District Murshidabad, was taken lease of by the Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 for 25 years from the owners thereof at a yearly rental of Rs. 999/ -. The said dag included a tank and also banks of the tank and the caveator/opposite Party No. 1 had developed portions of the said bank and was cultivating the same; that the petitioner was engaged as a daily labourer for the purpose of the said cultivation and he used a live at the Khamarbari belonging to the Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 and taking advantage of the said state of affairs, the petitioner thereafter made applications under Sections 144 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Caveator/opposite party No. 1 claiming barga right in respect of 8 bighas of land on the western side of the said Dag No. 2 and in connection that the said case the learned Sub-divisional executive Magistrate directed an enquiry to be made by the opposite party no. 2 i. e. the Junior Land Reforms Officer, sagardihi, who made an ex-parte enquiry and on the basis of such report the petitioner was claiming right in respect of the said land and was trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner therein. 2. THE petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement denying and disputing the material allegations made in the plaint and he further stated that the western portion of the said Dag No. 2 measuring about 8 bighas was being cultivated by the petitioner as a bargadar initially under one Gopal Chattopao3hyay and thereafter under Smt. Sibrani and subsequently under the Caveator/opposite Party no. 1 and he also delivered share of paddy to the Caveator/ opposite Party No. 1. 1 and he also delivered share of paddy to the Caveator/ opposite Party No. 1. In view of the specific case of the petitioner that he was a bargadar in respect of the said 8 big has of land, the learned Munsif passed an order referring the matter to the authority concerned under Section 21 (3) of the said Act for report. The concerned authority viz. the opposite party no. 2 after holding an enquiry found that the petitioner was made on 8. 11. 82 in Case No. 16 of 1982-83. The opposite party no. 2 after being satisfied from local enquiry that the petitioner had cultivated the said land, allowed the petitioner to harvest the paddy therefrom by his order dated 29. 10. 1984. No appeal, however, was preferred by the opposite party no. 1 against the said report and/or order by the opposite party no. 2 but he made an application purported to be one under Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules before the Additional District Magistrate (IR), Mushidabad which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 and the said Addl. District Magistrate by his order dated 14. 11. 1984 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order of the opposite party no. 2 and further restrained the petitioner from harvesting the paddy. The said Addl. District Magistrate by his subsequent order dated 8. 4. 85 allowed the petition filed by the opposite party no. 1 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 inter alia holding that the opposite party no. 2 while acting on the reference u/s. 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, could not have passed an order allowing the petitioner to cut away the paddy and that the opposite party no. 1 being a lessee, could not induct any bargadar in the suit land and that the land in questioning non-agricultural in nature, the order of the opposite party no. 2 was also not sustainable in law and hence, the petitioner should be restrained from going over the land unless the opposite party no. 2 gives a clear finding after hearing the opposite party no. 1 in the matter. The Addl. District Magistrate further held that he could also interfere into the matter under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Against the orders dated 14. 11. 84, 8. 4. 2 gives a clear finding after hearing the opposite party no. 1 in the matter. The Addl. District Magistrate further held that he could also interfere into the matter under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Against the orders dated 14. 11. 84, 8. 4. 1985 and 13. 3. 1985 passed by the said Addl. District Magtistrate, the petitioner moved a revisional application in this Court which gave rise to the present Civil Order. 3. MR. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended before me that the report of the opposite party no. 2 passed on reference under Section 2 1 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 could not be challenged in appeal under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act 1955 and the same could only be challenged in an appeal under Section 19 of the said Act and the purported application of the opposite parry No. 1 under Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules giving rise the Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 in which the said report and the order of the opposite party no. 2 were challenged, was, also not maintainable in law inasmuch as the power of superintendence and control as enumerated in the said Rule 6a only relates to administrative superintendence and control by a superior authority and not a judicial superintendence and control over any subordinate authority, 4. MR. Mrinmoy Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1, however, has contended that the application under Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land reforms (Bargadars) Rule filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 was quite maintainable in law and sub-rule (1) of the said rule speaks of general power of superintendence and control over the subordinate officers, by the officers as mentioned in the said sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) thereof speaks of additional instances of such power of superintendence and control and the two sub-rules are quite distinct and separate. The provisions of the said sub-rule (2) are thus only inclusive and not exhaustive in nature. Mr. The provisions of the said sub-rule (2) are thus only inclusive and not exhaustive in nature. Mr. Bagchi also referred to the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to draw an analogy in the matter and cited several decisions such as A. I. R. 1976 Delhi 50 (Walaiti ram Set v. Sri Krishna Kapoor and Ors.) A. I. R. 1977 Calcutta 393, (Union of India v. Ad Hoc Claims Commissioners and Ors.), a. I. R. 1974 Punjab 92, (M/s. Prem Chand Ramlal v. State of Punjab and Ors.), A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1135 (Nilkant Prosad v. State of Bihar and Ors.) in support of his contention that such power of superintendence and control under Rule 6a of the West Bengal (Bargadars) Rules includes also judicial power of superintendence and control. Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars)Rules gives the power of superintendence and control to certain officers who may be so empowered by a notification by the State Government, over the officers or authorities appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the West bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The State Government by notification No. 1302-L. Ref/8p-11/67 dated 16. 1. 75 gave such power to all collectors, all Additional District Magistrates, all Sub-divisional Officers, within their respective jurisdictions. The officers and authorities appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 also include all Junior Land Reforms Officers of each district within the State of West Bengal as per the Notification No. 1526/l-Ref- dated 5. 8. 1974. Under sub-rule (2)of the said Rule 6a it has been provided that the officer or officers empowered under sub-rule (1) of rule 6a shall have the power to withdraw, by general or special order, from the file of any officer or authority appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the West bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and subordinate officer or to him or them, any proceeding or proceedings and transfer the same for disposal to any other subordinate officer or authority under the said sub-section (1) of Section 18. 5. 5. FROM the plaint reading of the wordings of the two sub-rules of Rule 6a it would clearly appear that power of superintendence and control has been conferred upon the officers indicated in the said sub-rules (1) and the extent of such power regarding the withdrawal and transfer of cases has been specifically enumerated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a. The said two sub-rules are therefore, interlinked and not distinct and seperate and from such reading it can not be said by any stretch of imagination that any general power of superintendence and control including the power of judicial superintendence and control has been conferred upon the officers indicated in the said sub-rule (1) upon their subordinate officers under sub-rule (2)of Rule 6a. 6. UNDER sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 6a the nature of power of superintendence and control, which the officers indicated in the said sub-rule (1) enjoy over their subordinate officers, is in my view, only the administrative power of superintendence and control., the extent of which, has been exhaustively enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a and therefore it cannot be said by any means that an additional District Magistrate in exercise of such power of superintendence and control under sub-rule (1) of the said rule 6a can correct or set aside any order or report passed or given by any Junior Land Reforms Officer under him, under sub-rules (2) of the said Rule. The same can be done only in appeal under the West. Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 if such appeal is otherwise maintainable in law. Therefore the power of superintendence and control which such an Additional District Magistrate enjoys over any subordinate officer including the Junior Land Reforms Officer under the provisions of the said Rule 6a is exclusively an administrative power of superintendence and control that too, in respect of withdrawal or transfer of case from the file of a Subordinate officer only, and not any general power including the judicial power of superintendence and control Under sub-rule (2) of the said Rule 6a no additional power of superintendence or control has been given to any superior officer other than the power to withdraw or transfer of cases. The said Sub-rule only specifies the extent of the power of superintendence and control which such an officer enjoys under sub-rule (1)of the said Rule 6a, i. e. power of withdrawal and transfer of cases from the files of the subordinate officers only. The learned Advocate for the opposite party is not right in drawing an analogy between the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of. India and those of Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules. There could be no manner of comparison between Rule 6a contained in a piece of delegated legislation with High Court's power of superintendence under Article 22 7 which has been considered as similar to power enjoyed by Kings' Bench in England to issue prerogative writs like Mandamus, Certiorari and prohibitions as has been observed by Rankin C. J. in the case of Manmatha Nath Biswas v. Emperor, reported in 37 c. W. N. 201 = A. I. R. 1933 Cal. 132 in discussing the scope of Section 10 7 of the Government of India Act, 1915. In the case of Manmatha Nath Biswas (Supra) while interpreting the scope of High Court's power of superintendence under section 107 of the Government of India Act 1915. Rankin c. J. in the above case had inter alia observed : "high court's power of superintendence is power to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority so see that they do what their duty requires and that they do in a legal manner. " Reference may also be made to the observation made by Venkatarama Iyer, J. in the case of Harivishnu Kamath vs. Ahmed Ishak reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 . Mr. Justice Iyer in paragraph 20 of the said judgment has observed that the High Court's power of superitendence under Article 227 is both judicial and administrative. The Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dalmia Jain airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 calcutta 193 had practically re-produced the above observation of Rankin C. J. while indicating the scope of High court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dalmia Jain airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 calcutta 193 had practically re-produced the above observation of Rankin C. J. while indicating the scope of High court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Harris, C. J. while delivering the judgment of the Special Bench in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mumherjee (supra) inter alia, observed that in general words the High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a power to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority to see that they do their duty requires and they do in legal manner. The said right should be exercised in case where the subordinate Courts have equally done something which they were not entitled to do. The power must be used to keep the Courts below within the bounds prescribed by law of such Courts. S. R. Das J (as he then was) in the well known case of Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 had also referred with approval to the above observations made by Harris C. J. in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mumherjee (supra. 7. REFERENCE may also be made to the observation made by Mitter J in the case of Shaikh Mohamad Umarsaheb vs. Kadalaskar Hashan Karimsab and Ors. reported in AIR 1970 sc page 61 that High Court under Article 227 is to see that the Court below had not transgressed the limits imposed upon it by any Act. The above decision would clearly indicate that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India high Court has the power of superintendence to keep all courts and tribunal within its jurisdiction within the bounds of their authority and this means that under the said Article the High Court can interfere with the decision of the Courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction in case of their erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a new mistake of law or error of law relating to the jurisdiction violation of the principle of natural justice, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, arriving at a findings which is perverse or based on no material. 8. 8. THE language used in clause (1) of Article 227 is quite different from those used in Rule 6a of the West bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules. Under Article 227 (1)the High Court has power of superintendence over all courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and it is the settled law that Article 227 went further than section 22 4 of the government of India Act, 1935 under which the superintendence was purely administrative, and it restored the position under Section 107 of the Government of India Act 1915 and in some regards enlarged High Court's power of superintendence both in administrative and judicial matters. Clause (2)of Article 227 is prefaced with the words 'without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision the High Court shall have the powers enumerated therein. The said expressions clearly indicated that the powers enumerated were not in derogation of the generality of the provisions of clause (1) of Article 227. But the scheme of Rule 6a of the said Rules is entirely different. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6a does not at all indicate the extent power of superintendence and control by officers or authorities appointed by the State Government. The said sub-rule (1)only confers powers upon the State Government to appoint in each district or sub-division one or more of the officers who may exercise power of superintendence and control over officers and authorities appointed under sub-section (1)of section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a is a self-contained provision specifying the particular powers of superintendence and control of such officers who may be appointed under sub-rule (1) of rule 6a. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a has given power only to withdraw by general or special power any proceeding or proceedings from the file of any officer of authority appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Land reforms Act and also to transfer, the same for disposal to any other subordinate officer or authority. Neither sub-rule (1) nor sub-rule (2) of the Rule 6a has conferred general power of judicial superintendence upon the officers appointed by the State Government by notification under rule 6a (1. Anything else done, in the purported exercise of power of superintendence would be without jurisdiction on the ground that the same was beyond the authority conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a of West Bengal Land reforms (Bargadar) Rules. Anything else done, in the purported exercise of power of superintendence would be without jurisdiction on the ground that the same was beyond the authority conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6a of West Bengal Land reforms (Bargadar) Rules. The abovementioned decision cited by Mr. Bagchi, therefore do not help him any way. t does not also appear from the facts and circumstances of the case whether the opposite party No. 1 had preferred any appeal from the report of the opposite party no. 2 given in connection with a reference under Section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 made by the learned Munsif in connection with O. C. Suit No. 208 of 1979. Mr. Bagchi also could not enlighten this court on that point. Another question comes up incidentally in this case as to whether the order of the Additional District magistrate challenged in this revisional application can be treated as an order in appeal under Section 54 of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. According to Mr. Banerjee even if an appeal lies from any decision of the Junior land Reforms Officer upon a reference under Section 21 (3)of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act made by a civil criminal court, such decision should be considered as a determination under section 18 (2) of the said Act and therefore, is appealable under section 19. In support of his contention mr. Banerjee referred to the decisions reported in 1975 (2) CLJ 4 47 (Chapala Bala Adhikari vs. Monoranjan Das and ors.) and also the decision reported in 1977 (2) CLJ 219 (Prabir Kumar Pattanayak vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. In both the two decisions Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittotosh mookherjee has held inter alia that the decision upon a reference under section 2 1 (3) West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 must be considered as a determination under section 18 (2)of the said Act and as such is appealable under section 19 thereof. Of course, in the Bench judgment in this Court reported in 1978 Calcutta High Courts Note 269 (Ashutosh Bhuinya and Ors. vs. Birendra Nath Roy) it has been held inter alia, by N. C. Mukherji and B. C. Roy, jj. Of course, in the Bench judgment in this Court reported in 1978 Calcutta High Courts Note 269 (Ashutosh Bhuinya and Ors. vs. Birendra Nath Roy) it has been held inter alia, by N. C. Mukherji and B. C. Roy, jj. that the observations made in Chapala Bala Adhikary's case (supra) that the orders passed upon a reference under section 2 1 (3) of the said Act was appealable, were obiter dictum, as the question whether the order made on such a reference was appealable under Section 19 of the said act did not come up for decision in Chapala Bala Adhikary's case (supra. But unfortunately, their Lordships did not consider at all the decision in Prabir Kumar Pattanayak 's case (supra) where the same point was directly in issue as it was held by Mookherjee J in Pattanayak's case (supra)that the short point in that rule was whether the decision of the Bhagchas Officer given in the reference made by the Criminal Court under Section 2 1 (3) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act was subject to an appeal under Section 19 of the said Act. In such view of the matter it cannot be conclusively held therefore that no appeal has been provided for in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against any decision made upon a reference under section 21 (3)of the said Act as was observed in Ashutosh Bhuinya's case (supra. 9. IN view of the decision in Prabir Pattanayak's case (supra) since the appeal lies against any decision made upon a reference under section 21 (3) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act, under Section 19 of the said Act, such an appeal should lie to the sub-divisional officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated and not to the Collector or the Additional District Magistrate under Section 54 of the said Act. 10. IN view of my above observation the impugned orders cannot be sustained and therefore, are set aside. The opposite party no. 1, however, may prefer an appeal against the decision of the opposite party no. 2 made in Case No. 16 of 1982-83 upon a' reference under Section 21 (3) of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act made by the learned Munsif at Jangipur in O. C. Suit No. 208 of 1979 before the appropriate authority if any such appeal has not yet been preferred. 2 made in Case No. 16 of 1982-83 upon a' reference under Section 21 (3) of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act made by the learned Munsif at Jangipur in O. C. Suit No. 208 of 1979 before the appropriate authority if any such appeal has not yet been preferred. The Civil Order is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.