Dismissed

Sk. Samad v. Rabindra Nath Jana & Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Aug 2021CO/794/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the revisional application, affirming the trial court's order. It held that Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, mandates a reference regarding 'bargadarship' to the designated authority even if no dispute exists between the parties under Section 18 or if the defendants filed joint stated of facts.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application dismissed; Orders no.35 dated January 29, 2019 affirmed.

Sk. Samad Vs Rabindra Nath Jana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

25^th August, 2021 (AK) 1

¶2

C.O. 794 of 2019

¶3

Sk. Samad Vs. Sri Rabindra Nath Jana and others

¶4

Mr. Amit Baran Dash

¶5

…For the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh Mr. Shib Sankar Banerjee …For the Opposite Parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner advances an interesting argument of law. It is submitted that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in referring the dispute between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff to the appropriate authority under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

¶8

It is argued that the dispute, if any, is only restricted between the plaintiff in the suit, that is, the petitioner and the defendant no.2. In fact, it is submitted that the two defendants, being the alleged bargadar and the land owner, have filed joint written statements in the suit, hence obviating the scope of any dispute between themselves.

¶9

By placing reliance on Section 18 of the 1955 Act, learned counsel contends that the said provision envisages only disputes between a bargadar and the

¶10

¶11

person whose land he cultivates in respect of the matters as stipulated in the said provision.

¶12

However, the instant suit having given rise to no such dispute between the defendants inter se , the question of the matter being covered under Section 18 does not arise at all. As such, it is argued, the bar of jurisdiction as stipulated in Section 21 does not apply at all to the present suit.

¶13

Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Bagal Tanti and others Vs. Ram Ranjan Laha and others reported at AIR 1976 Calcutta 13 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this court elaborated the scope of operation of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the light of the Amendment Act of 1974.

¶14

The learned Single Judge made certain observations which indicate that only a dispute between a bargadar and the person whose land he cultivates can come within the purview of Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and suits of any other nature cannot be relegated to such category and/or decided by the authority appointed under Section 18.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposes such contentions and submits that Section 21(3) stands on an independent footing and is not circumscribed by Section 18 of the said Act. As such,

¶16

¶17

learned counsel for the opposite parties supports the order passed by the trial court.

¶18

Upon a conjoint reading of Section 18 and Section 21 of the 1955 Act, it is evident that the scopes of operation of the two are different.

¶19

Section 18 contemplates only disputes between a bargadar and the person whose land he cultivates in respect of the specific matters enumerated in sub-Section (1) of Section 18. However, Section 21(3) is much wider in scope, inasmuch as it encompasses all suits, which are not confined to suits between the bargadar and the landholder only.

¶20

Sub-Section (3) of Section 21 of the 1955 Act clearly stipulates that, if “any question” as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar arises in the course of “any suit”, case, appeal or other proceedings before any civil or criminal court, the court shall refer it to the officer or authority mentioned in sub-Section(1) of Section 18 for decision and “such court shall dispose of the suit”, case, appeal or other proceedings in accordance with the decision communicated to it by the officer or authority mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 18 to whom “the question was referred”.

¶21

It is crystal-clear from the language of sub-Section (3) of Section 21 of the 1955 Act that the entire suit has not been relegated to the authority mentioned in Section 8(1) of the 1955 Act. The reference to Section 18(1) in

¶22

¶23

Section 21 (3) is for the limited purpose of designating the authority who has to take a call on the question referred to by the civil court.

¶24

The jurisdiction of such authority is restricted only to the decision of the question bargadar ship and the authority has to, mandatorily, refer back the matter for final disposal on merits to the trial court for further adjudication on the other issues.

¶25

Drawing a contrary analogy, section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, the said provision clearly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in any matter where a question arises as to whether a property is a thika land or not, vesting such power of adjudication exclusively on the thika Controller.

¶26

As opposed to such a proposition, Section 21(3) only envisages a limited reference for the purpose of deciding bargadar ship, either in the positive or in the negative, by the authority prescribed under Section 18(1) of the 1955 Act.

¶27

In fact, the specific distinction between the scope of operation of Sections 18 and 21 of the 1955 Act lies in the fact that merely disputes between bargadar s and persons whose land they cultivate, which are covered by the matters specifically enumerated in Section 18(1), are to be decided exclusively by the authority designated therein.

¶28

On the contrary, to leave sufficient window for civil courts, criminal courts, etc. to adjudicate

¶29

¶30

comprehensively other suits, where the question might not be restricted to disputes between a bargadar and the land holder but merely the question of bargadar ship arises, Section 21(3) has been couched in a wider language by the Legislature, in its wisdom.

¶31

It is not for the court to arrive at a contrary interpretation just for the sake of being non-conformist. Hence, the revisional application has got no legs to stand on, since the trial court was absolutely justified in referring the dispute under Section 21(3) of the 1955 Act to the appropriate authority.

¶32

C.O. 794 of 2019 is, thus, dismissed on contest, thereby affirming Order no.35 dated January 29, 2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), First court at Contai, District- Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No.34 of 2016.

¶33

I will be failing in my duty if I do not note that learned counsel for the petitioner argued extremely well on a difficult point, particularly when opposed by a senior having long standing at the Bar and such effort is appreciated by this court.

¶34

There will be no order as to costs.

¶35

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶36

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Sk. Samad v. Rabindra Nath Jana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Samad v. Rabindra Nath Jana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijon Modi and Ors. Vs Alauddin Ahmed and Anr.

Kamal Kumar Das Vs Nirmal Kumar Das & Ors.

Santu Pal Vs Santana Mukherjee & Ors.

Partha Sarathi Bhowmick Vs Alivia Bhowmick

Uday Sankar Prasad & Anr. Vs Nikhil Pal

Sujit Kumar Nandan @ Sujit Nandan Vs Shyamal Kumar Nandan and Anr.