Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 168 (CAL)

Diptendu Banerjee v. Satinath Mondal

2011-02-04

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. 2558 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal directed the authority empowered under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, Ausgram to record the name of the applicant before the said learned Tribunal viz., the respondent No. 1 herein as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question. 2. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner before us submits that the respondent no.1 herein viz., the applicant before the learned Tribunal never cultivated the lands in question as Bargadar and no document was ever produced before any authority regarding delivery of share of crops to the land owner by the said respondent no.1. Since the respondent No.1 herein did not produce any document before any authority regarding delivery of the share of crops to the land owner, there is no scope to recognize him as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question under the statute. Mr. Tapas Sil, learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1, however, invited our attention to a document executed before the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in support of the contention that the said respondent No.1 delivered the share of the crops to the landlord in the year 1984. 3. We fail to understand how a Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat can decide the dispute relating to delivery of the share of crops when a prescribed authority under the statute is empowered to decide the same. Furthermore, scrutinizing the said document, we find that on 18th July, 1984, the father of the respondent No.1 herein agreed to deliver share of the crops to the landlord although the said document was not signed by the landlord and someone else singed on behalf of the landlord accepting the offer of the father of the respondent No.1 herein. 4. Therefore, going through the materials on record, we find that nothing was produced either before the concerned Revenue Officer under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or before the appellate authority or even before the learned Tribunal to establish the claim of the respondent No.1 as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question by producing proper documents regarding delivery of share of the crops to the land owner. Under the statute, a Bargadar is bound to deliver the share of crops regularly to the landlord. In the instant case, we do not find any document regarding delivery of the share of the crops to the landlord either by the respondent No.1 or even by his father. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, upon considering the materials on record, competent authority viz., the authority under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has refused to recognise the respondent No.1 herein as Bargadar in respect of the lands in question which has also been upheld by the appellate authority. 6. The learned Tribunal, however, upon placing reliance on a document executed before the Prodhan regarding the alleged settlement with regard to the delivery of share of crops in order to arrive at the conclusion that the name of the respondent No.1 herein should be recorded as Bargadar. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the said document regarding settlement of alleged disputes in. respect of the delivery of share of crops was not even signed by the land owner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the land owner ever accepted the father of the respondent No.1 as Bargadar. No one can be recognised as a Bargadar unless he cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person. 7. Bargadar has been defined in sub-section (2) of section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as hereunder: "(2) "bargadar" means a person who under the system generally known as adhi, barga or bhag cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person; [and includes a person who under the system generally known as kisani lor by any other description] cultivates the land of another person on condition of receiving a share of the produce of such land from that person;]" 8. As discussed hereinbefore, in the instant case, it has not been established on the basis of the available materials on records that the respondent no.1 or his father cultivated the land in question and delivered the share of the produce to the landlord. As discussed hereinbefore, in the instant case, it has not been established on the basis of the available materials on records that the respondent no.1 or his father cultivated the land in question and delivered the share of the produce to the landlord. No document regarding delivery of the produce has been produced either before the Revenue Officer under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act or before the appellate authority and the document executed before the Prodhan cannot be accepted as a valid document in support of the delivery of share of crops to the landlord since the landlord did not sign the said document. Even in absence of proper and valid document, learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 11th September, 2009 recognised the respondent no.1 as the Bargadar in respect of the lands in question which, in our opinion, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in case number O.A. 2558 of 2007 and affirm the findings of the Revenue Officer under section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which has been subsequently upheld by the appellate authority. 10. This writ petition thus stands allowed. Needless to mention that if any step has already been taken and/or any order has been passed by any authority pursuant to the impugned judgment and order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, then the same should be deemed to be cancelled. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the appearing parties on usual undertaking.