Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 531 (CAL)

Radha Nath Pal v. Land Reforms Officer

2000-11-02

DILIP KUMAR SETH

body2000
JUDGMENT The petitioner had purchased plot Nos. 283 and 221 measuring about .17 and .14 acres from one Srish Chandra Mondal. The said Srish Chandra Mondal was subjected to a Big Raiyat proceeding being B.R. Case No. ......of 1959 which was disposed of on 19th October, 1962. Thus, the petitioner was a post vesting transferee; Be that as it may, the petitioner- having moved a writ petition apprehending that the said lands were vested, the writ petition being C.R. No. 2079(W) of 1983 was disposed of on August 28, 1991 by the following order:- "Since the petitioners are post vesting purchasers the only relief that the petitioners are entitled to in this rule is that -they are at liberty to make an application before the authority concerned for settlement of the disputed land in their favour and, if such an application is made within a month from date, the same will be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order. Till one month after such disposal, the interim order, already granted, shall continue provided, however, the representation is made within the period as mentioned above, in default, this order shall stand recalled and the rule shall stand discharged. The rule is made absolute as above. No order as to costs. " 2. Pursuant to the said order, the appropriate authority had passed' an order on 17th August, 1998. Being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this application for contempt alleging that the respondents had violated the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed in C. R. No. 2079(W) of 1983. 3. Mr. Milon Bhattacherjee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the alleged contemners had purported to pass an order but in fact with an ulterior motive and mala fide design they have passed an order which has not granted the relief as was directed by the Court. In fact, the alleged contemners by sheer mechanism had stood in the way of dispensing Justice and as such are liable under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. I nave heard Mr. Bhattacherjee at length. 5. In order to appreciate the situation it may be necessary to point out that the respondents had found that the petitioners hold land in excess of the area that disentitles a person for settlement of land under. Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms. 4. I nave heard Mr. Bhattacherjee at length. 5. In order to appreciate the situation it may be necessary to point out that the respondents had found that the petitioners hold land in excess of the area that disentitles a person for settlement of land under. Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms. Act. The proposition that the petitioners hold land in excess of the limit provided under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not disputed by Mr. Bhattacherjee. Thus, the finding that the petitioners are not entitled to settlement of the vested land cannot be said to be erroneous or a mechanism to avoid the implication of order dated 28th August, 1991 as contended by Mr. Bhattacherjee. However, Mr. Bhattacherjee had insisted on the later part of the order by which he contends that the plot No. 221 should have been divested in order to entitle the petitioners to retain the same on account of it is being retained land of the Big Raiyat. But that question does not amount to a contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents in view of the order dated 28th August, 1991 which only directs settlement of vested land in favour of the petitioners if the petitioners so apply. It has never directed the respondents to divest plot No. 221 in order to enable the petitioners to retain the same on account of its being retained land of the Big Raiyat. Therefore, there is no question of commission of and contempt by the respondents. 6. Then again, it appears from the said order that plot No. 283 was not vested and that plot No. 221 which was vested and stood already distributed to one Promila Mondal in R.S. Case No. 36(b)/1403 and patta had already been issued. But, the Big Raiyat Sri Mondal having agreed to surrender one of his retained plot No. 2654 measuring about 14 acre in Mouza Mahammadpur in exchange of plot No. 221 a proposal was mooted by the respondents that the patta-holder may be provided by another plot and that plot No. 221 measuring about 14 acre be divested after vesting .14 acres of land out of plot No. 2654 in Mouza Mahammadpur. Thus, also the alleged contemners have not committed any contempt. Thus, also the alleged contemners have not committed any contempt. In case the proposal has not been given effect to in that event, the sale may be a fresh cause of action for the petitioners. But, by no stretch of imagination the said order could be said to be an order against the interest of the petitioners. On the other hand, the said order advanced the interest of the petitioners. Passing bf a wrong order, unless smaked by mala fide apparent on the face of it, is not a contumacious conduct. When an order is passed in deliberate violation of the order of the Court, it is contempt. But, a quasi judicial order, without tainted by deliberate mala fide apparent on the face of it, cannot be construed to be contumacious. When one is left with the discretion to pass an order one way or the other, the passing of an order is an exercise of such discretion. Exercise of discretion can never be contumacious, particularly when the same is supported by reason, even if there might be a different opinion about such reasoning. 7. In the present case, the reasoning given is also supported bylaw and about the same there cannot be any two opinion about the ground of disentitlement of the petitioner to settlement. Whereas the later part of the order has been passed to extend favour to the petitioner even as the cost of the person to whom patta was already granted. 8. Thus, if the petitioners are aggrieved by reason of non-implication or approval of the proposal in that event they have afresh cause of action either under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act or under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, both of which are specified Acts defined under Section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunals Act, 1997. By reason of Section 6 of the 1997, Act the jurisdiction relating to the specified Acts have since been conferred on the Tribunal after its establishment. A Tribunal has since been established under the provisions of the 1997 Act. Section 7 confers the jurisdiction exerciseable by the High Court in respect of original matters relating to the specified Acts except those exerciseable by the Division Bench on the Tribunal. A Tribunal has since been established under the provisions of the 1997 Act. Section 7 confers the jurisdiction exerciseable by the High Court in respect of original matters relating to the specified Acts except those exerciseable by the Division Bench on the Tribunal. By reason of Section 8, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of this Court relating to the specified Act in respect of original matters have since been excluded excepting those exerciseable by Division Bench and thus this Court ceases to have jurisdiction in respect of any matters covered under the provisions of the specified Act in view of Sections 7 and 8 of 1997 Act. Therefore, in case the petitioners are aggrieved they have a remedy before the Tribunal which they may resort to, if they are so advised. 9. The application for contempt thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, the same may be supplied as early as possible.