Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 462 (CAL)

Kali Charan Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal

1995-12-21

S.Narayan

body1995
JUDGMENT S. Narayan, J.: This application being one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and Order dated 28.7.1992 passed by the Appellate Court of the Collector-cum-District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Birbhum in Appeal No. 32 of 1991, whereby the decisions taken by the Revenue Officer-cum-Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rampurhat-II in Bargachas Case No. 6/91, 9/91, 10/91, 11/91, 18/91 and 26/91 passed on varied dates were altered by giving direction of Barga recording made in those cases to be cancelled and the status-quo in respect of possession and cultivation of the lands to be maintained by the, parties till fresh inquiry and determination of Barga was done. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant revisional petition are as follows: The Respondent Nos. 9-14 submitted applications before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rampurhat-II Block claiming Barga rights and for recording their names as Bargadars. Persuant to their applications, notices were issued, enquiries were held in presence of both the parties and, ultimately, the Revenue Officer i.e. Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Rampurhat took decisions in favour of the Bargadars of different cases as per details given hereunder:- Name Case No. Date of decision Area of Barga Land Kashudiram Let 26/91 9.12.91 .55 Acres Naba Kumar Let 6/91 6.1.92 .22 ” Prabhat Kumar Let 11/91 6.1.92 1.01 ” Nibir Kumar Let 9/91 8.10.91 .47 ” Mantu Bhoinmali 18/91 6.1.92 .53 ” Kesto Bhoinmali 10/91 8.10.91 .42 ” 3. The Bargadars i.e. the Respondent Nos. 9-14 being aggrieved of the decision of the Revenue Officer preferred appeal in each of the cases by separate memos of appeal with respect to which only one Appeal case No. being 32 of 1991 was registered in the Appellate Court of the District Land and Land Reform" Officer, Birbhum. After the appeal was registered and admitted on 1.7.1992, the hearing was adjourned on 28.7.1992, when the appellants Bargadars i.e., the Respondent Nos. 9-14 were absent but the respondent i.e., the present revisional petitioners filed their attendance and authorised one, Chand Gopal Mondal to conduct their case before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, after having heard the said Chand Gopal Mondal, passed the impugned orders as referred to above. 4. 9-14 were absent but the respondent i.e., the present revisional petitioners filed their attendance and authorised one, Chand Gopal Mondal to conduct their case before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, after having heard the said Chand Gopal Mondal, passed the impugned orders as referred to above. 4. The main thrust of the attack by the revisional petitioners is on the point that the appeal-in-question was barred by the limitation and the same was not maintainable in as much as only one appeal case has been registered, against as many as six orders of the Revenue Officer, passed on varied dates in different cases with respect to different sets of land. 5. On comparing the varied dates of decisions in Bargachas cases with the date of preferring the appeal, there was certainly considerable delay in preferring the appeals but the Appellate Court appears to have very carefully examined that aspect of the appeal and it has been made clear in the impugned order that the appeal was being admitted inspite of the technical flaw of limitation. This was clear indicative of the fact that the delay in preferring the appeal, if any, had been condoned by the Appellate Court, which was certainly within his rights. So far, the solitary appeal case No. having been given to as many as six memos of appeal filed against each and every order of the Revenue Court, it is well to notice that it was some what a ministerial irregularity. Probably, for the purpose of convenience and for analogous hearing of the appeals of all the memos, there was only one registration No. of appeal given to all of them. In any view of the matter such ministerial irregularity was hardly sufficient to vitiate the order of the appeal more so when I do not find any prejudice having been caused to' the revisional petitioners. Before the Appellate Court, the revisional petitioners had ample opportunity to ventilate their grievances against all the relevant orders of the Revenue Officer, taking advantage of the absence of the Bargadars; and in that view of the matter, as well, I do not think, the above objections had any merit to seek interference of this Court. 6. Before the Appellate Court, the revisional petitioners had ample opportunity to ventilate their grievances against all the relevant orders of the Revenue Officer, taking advantage of the absence of the Bargadars; and in that view of the matter, as well, I do not think, the above objections had any merit to seek interference of this Court. 6. On factual score as to the claim of possession over the Lands-in-dispute, the impugned order had simply directed for a fresh decision on inquiry while maintaining the status-quo in respect of the possession and cultivation of lands by the parties till fresh determination of Barga rights. Even this aspect of the case was incapable to evoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Before I part with the discussion in the matter, it is deemed necessary to quote an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in Md. Unish vs. Md. Mustakin and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 36. As per this authority, a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determinations of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based. This principle would be most apposite to take a decision in the instant case. 8. Regard being have had to the discussions above, I do not find any merit in the instant revisional petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.