Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 108 (CAL)

Benay Krishna Mondal v. Aswini Kumar Baur

1994-03-30

Asok Kumar Chakravarty

body1994
JUDGMENT Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J. : This revisional application is directed against order dated 21st February, 1991 in L.R. Appeal Case No. 68/87-88 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour, District 24-Parganas (South) by which he affirmed the order dated 14th July, 1987 passed by the Bhagchas Officer under s. 18 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, Mathurapur, South 24-Parganas in Case No. 36 of 1987. 2. The short point that comes up for consideration in this matter is whether the Bhagchas Officer has a right to restore a case which he had disposed of under s. 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 3. The petitioner admittedly is the owner of land in plot No. 3576 in Khatian No. 2207 measuring 1.33 decimals of land of mouza Dighirpar Bakultala under P. S. Mathurapur, Dist. 24-Parganas (South). For recovery of the owner's share of the bhag produced for the period of 1391 B.S. and 1392 B.S. the petitioner filed Bhagchas Case No. 26/87 which ended in a compromise between the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 to 4 who were described as bargadars in the said matter. By his order dated 24th April, 1987 the learned Bhagchas Officer disposed of the said proceeding in terms of the solenama. Thereafter, it appears, by order dated 14.7.87 that case was again put up before him and from the enquiry report submitted by the C.I. he found that the opposite party No. 1 Aswini Kumar Baur was really a bargadar and he cultivated the land in question and he accordingly by the said order restored the Bhagchas case and disposed of that case again by dismissing the claim of the petitioner for his owner's share from opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 for 1391 B.S. and 1392 B.S. Thus though the Bhagchas Officer initially disposed of the matter by this order dated 24.4.87 in favour of the petitioner and granted relief in terms of the solenama decree against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 by subsequent order dated 14.7.87 he rejected the petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Bhagchas Officer an appeal was preferred under s. 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the learned Appellate authority that is, the Sub-divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour and the Appellate Officer by his order dated 21.2.91 affirmed the order of the Bhagchas Officer. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Bhagchas Officer an appeal was preferred under s. 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the learned Appellate authority that is, the Sub-divisional Officer, Diamond Harbour and the Appellate Officer by his order dated 21.2.91 affirmed the order of the Bhagchas Officer. 4. Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Appellate authority dated 21.2.91 was not in accordance with law and he had committed jurisdiction error in confirming the order of the Bhagchas Officer as the Bhagchas Officer had no authority under the law to restore the Bhagchas case which had already been disposed of. 5. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate for the O.P. No. 1 however, submitted that the Bhagchas Officer had the authority to restore a case which has already been disposed of by him in view of the fact that the real bargadar had not been made a party intentionally and the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 acted in collusion with each other for the purpose of depriving the real bargadar of his own right. He accordingly contended that the learned Appellate Officer rightly affirmed the order of the Bhagchas Officer. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates of both the sides, on a careful reading of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Bhagchas Officer it appears that a dispute was raised about the delivery of Bhag produced and it also appears that the matter was compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. It also appears by his order dated 24.4.87 the Bhagchas Officer disposed of the case in terms of the solenama. This Court is not concerned with the question whether the compromise was effected by way of collusion between the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The only point of law involved in this matter is, as I have stated earlier is whether after the disposal of the case by his order dated 24.4.87 the Bhagchas Officer is entitled to restore the case to his file once again and can pass an order of dismissal considering that application after such restoration. 2 to 4. The only point of law involved in this matter is, as I have stated earlier is whether after the disposal of the case by his order dated 24.4.87 the Bhagchas Officer is entitled to restore the case to his file once again and can pass an order of dismissal considering that application after such restoration. In a similar case reported in Sudhansu Kumar Aich vs. Kangal Chandra Maity and Ors., 69 CWN at page 908 the question came up for consideration is whether the Bhagchas Officer can review an exparte order on the ground of fraudulent suppression of notices and processes. It was held in the said decision that technically speaking, under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no express or implied power in the Bhagchas Officer to set aside an exparte award or order made by him under s. 18 of the Act. It was further held in the said decision that the whole purpose of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is that this dispute relating to Bargadars and jotedars about termination of cultivation by the bargadars or division or delivery of the produce or place of storing or thrashing of the produce should be decided expeditiously and not with all the complications of a full fledged civil suit under the Civil Procedure Code. The whole intention of the Act is that they should be decided under s. 18 and except an appeal as provided in s. 19 should finally compose the differences and should not be questioned in a civil court. It was intended that Ss. 18 and 19 will form a complete code for disposal of matters mentioned in Ss. 17 and 18 of the Land Reforms Act. 7. In this connection reference may be made to the applications filed by opposite party No. 1 after the disposal of the case. It will appear that he filed the application for review of the matter and for his inclusion as an additional defendant in the said case. In view of the decisions mentioned earlier the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code including review shall not be available particularly to a stranger who was not a party in the initial proceeding. The matter having already been disposed of there cannot be any question of allowing opposite party No. 1's application for making him an additional party. In view of the decisions mentioned earlier the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code including review shall not be available particularly to a stranger who was not a party in the initial proceeding. The matter having already been disposed of there cannot be any question of allowing opposite party No. 1's application for making him an additional party. It is therefore, clear that the learned Bhagchas Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction in restoring the case after it was disposed of as he had no authority under the law to do the same. The learned Appellate authority having affirmed the aforesaid order of the Bhagchas Officer the order dated 21.2.91 also cannot be sustained. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhatacharjee, the learned Advocate for the O.P. No.1, however, contended that technically the order cannot be said to be very much justified still then this application filed before the Bhagchas Officer can be treated as a fresh application which can be disposed of by the Bhagchas Officer treating the same as a new case under s. 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. I have carefully gone through the application filed by the opposite party No. 1 and I find that that application by itself cannot be termed as a petition under s. 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 8. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law mentioned above I am to hold that the order dated 14.7.87 passed by the Bhagchas Officer and the Appellate Court's order dated 21.2.91 affirming the said order of the Bhagchas Officer cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The opposite party No. 1 is however, given liberty to file a fresh application under s. 18 of the Land Reforms Act before the competent authority within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Bhagchas Officer and the Bhagchas Officer shall start a new case on the basis of it and shall dispose of the said application expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. The Revisional application is accordingly allowed. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. Application allowed.