Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 180 (CAL)

Suchand Chowdhury v. State of W. Bengal

2000-04-12

MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI, Satyabrata Sinha

body2000
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J.: These two applications are directed against orders dated 9.3.2000 as passed by two different Benches of the West Bengal Land Reforms Tribunal although one of the members was common, in O.A. 67 of 2000 and O.A. 112 of 2000. Before entering into the merit of the matter, it is necessary to consider the backdrop of the case. 2. The private respondents herein filed an application before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer allegedly for correction of records of right. The said application was registered as Case No. 33 of 1999. By order dated 31.9.99 while issuing a notice it was observed, "Whereas it appears that they prayed for causing enquiry on the spot and on perusal of the C.S., R.S. and L.R. records existing to determine the actual sebaits of Sri Sri Singha Bahini Mata Thakurani as the present recorded owners are making propaganda that they have become the raiyats of the plots." However, upon hearing the parties, Estate Officer by an order dated 21.9.99 directed. "O.P. sides file haxiras. Heard them in details. It appears from R.Rs. since C.S. L.R.S operation that record of rights is being continuing erroneously. The O.P.'s right as supervisor or sebait of Sri Sri Singha Bahini Mata Thakurani has been denied or not incorporated in R.S. record of rights as the disputed plots are not the raiyati plots and debuttars 16 Annas interest is involved. Since it is found that O.P's Predecessors were involved. As there is also another stage under section 51A(4) for notification of L.R. of records of rights O.P.s are at liberty to file prayer under section 51A (4) for rectification of erroneous entry of the names existing at present. In the meantime O.C. Chandrakona P.S. may be requested to see so that both the parties may be restricted from interfering into possession or catching fish from the ponds or cutting any tree for the interest of peace and tranquility in the area and in order to avoid any breach of peace. Both parties may be called to make a sitting for amicable solution as it is not a personal property of the present sebaits/supervisor and to get the result." 3. As against the aforementioned order, both the parties filed applications before the learned Tribunal. Both parties may be called to make a sitting for amicable solution as it is not a personal property of the present sebaits/supervisor and to get the result." 3. As against the aforementioned order, both the parties filed applications before the learned Tribunal. As indicated hereinbefore one Bench comprising of K.L. Mukhapadhyay and K.J. Majumdar, by order dated 9.3.2000 passed in O.A. 67 of 2000 disposed of the application directing, "We, therefore, direct the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chandrakona-I, District Midnapore that let the petition made by the applicants under section 51A(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, one in connection with the land in respect of mouja Laxmipur, P.S. Chandrakona, both Midnapore District be disposed of according to their turn and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible." Whereas on the same day another Bench comprising of K.J. Majumdar and R.N. De in O.A. 112 of 2000 accepted the defence of the State that the aforementioned order dated 21st September, 1999 had been passed by the B.L. & L.R.O. in his administrative capacity. It was held that by reason of the said order aforementioned officer has merely advised the opposite parties who mayor may not accept the same without considering the question as to whether B.L. & L.R.O. can exercise an administrative power or has any advisory jurisdiction for that matter. Ultimately it was directed, "Again the learned advocate for the applicant cited decision of the Arun Ranjit's case (1977 CHN 1054) and has submitted that the B.L. & L.R.O. has no authority to pass any order of injunction. It may be noted that the applicants' own annexure, particularly the copy of the impugned order implies that the matter relates to the apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility and such direction which is absolutely administrative in nature is out of the scope of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, since its jurisdiction is restricted to specified Act. The principles of law laid down in the above noted decisions are not applicable in the instant case before this Tribunal. The B.L. & L.R.O. has not taken any action under a specific provision of the Act particularly West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955". 4. Mr. The principles of law laid down in the above noted decisions are not applicable in the instant case before this Tribunal. The B.L. & L.R.O. has not taken any action under a specific provision of the Act particularly West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955". 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that not only Block Land and Land Reforms Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction, such authority has also no jurisdiction to go into the question of title by entering into a disputed question of sebaitship. 5. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State very fairly submitted that he is not in a position to support either the order of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer or the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 112 of 2000. 6. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent, also in his usual fairness did not support the second part of the order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, but submitted that his client has merely filed an application in terms of the provisions of section 51A(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act before the appropriate authority for correction of the entries made in the records of rights as the idol being the owner of the properties which had been given in absolute debuttar, the name of the deity should be recorded along with sebaits and not some of the sebaits alone. 7. The West Bengal Land Reforms Act is self contained Code. Various statutory authorities have been constituted under the said Act for discharging statutory functions which are distinct in nature. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer in terms of the provisions of the statute can neither entertain an application on his administrative side, although such a function can be performed by him as a statutory authority under the Act, nor has he any jurisdiction to pass any order while acting in such capacity. It is one of the cases which shows how the Revenue authorities are violating the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and passing orders of injunction which are not within their domain. It is one of the cases which shows how the Revenue authorities are violating the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and passing orders of injunction which are not within their domain. In our opinion, such power of injunction could not have been exercised by the said authority which is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 225 . 8. If the application before the said authority was not maintainable, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that no order either in his advisory capacity or otherwise could have been passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. However, there cannot also be any doubt that an application in terms of section 51A(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was maintainable and if the private respondents herein have already filed an application or intend to file one, the same should be disposed of in accordance with law and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Furthermore, the statutory authority while passing such an order should not be prejudiced by any observations made by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer while acting in an administrative capacity. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we set aside the order dated 9.3.2000 passed in O.A. 112 of 2000 and uphold the other order dated 9.3.2000 passed in O.A. 67 of 2000 with the observations made hereinbefore. 10. In the result, W.P.L.R.T. 134 of 2000 is allowed and W.P.L.R.T. 135 of 2000 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. We, however, hope and trust that the authorities should consider the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Xerox certified copy of this order may be given on priority basis. M.H.S. Ansari, J.: I agree. W.P.L.R. T. No. 134 of 2000 allowed. W.P.L.R. T. No. 135 of 2000 dismissed.