AZIZAR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against an adjudication made by an authority empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in Case No. 15/B.C./1980 which is Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, the instant writ petition has been moved by the petitioner Azizar Rahaman. The writ petition having been moved with a notice to the State and also to the respondent No. 3, Ahed Box, in whose favour the adjudication was made, the learned counsel for the said respondents have also appeared at the hearing.

(2.) It appears that the respondent No. 3, Ahed Box made an application to the officer under Section 18 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act contending that the applicant was a Bhagchasi and in the body of the petition it was also stated that as the landowner had been taking steps to transfer the said land and to evict the said applicant from the disputed land, he had to make the said application for the purpose of recording himself as a bargadar. In the prayer portion it was, however, stated that the officer concerned after making necessary enquiries should give a declaration that the said applicant was a bargadar. It appears that on the basis of the said application, the said proceeding under Section 18 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act being case No. 15/B.C./1980 was initiated in the Court of the Bhagchas Officer-cum-Junior Land Reforms Officer, Deganga, 24 Parganas. The concerned officer held in the said proceeding that the said Ahed Box Mondal was a bargadar in respect of the disputed plot since 1386 B. S. and it was also observed in the adjudication that necessary certificate about Barga cultivation should be issued in favour of the said applicant. The legality and validity of the initiation of the said proceeding and adjudication made therein have been challenged in the instant writ petition and the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that for the purpose of declaration simpliciter that somebody was a bargadar, no application under Section 18 (2) could be made. He also submitted that if a dispute within the meaning of Section 18 (1) of the Act was raised and for the purpose of deciding the said dispute a question also arose as to whether concerned party was a bargadar or not then the officer empowered under Section 18 (1) could decide the said question as to the existence of the barga cultivation under Section 18 (2). The learned Counsel submitted that in 1974 under the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974, Sub-section (2) of Section 18 was amended and it was incorporated in Sub-section (2) that if in deciding any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1) or 'otherwise' any question would arise as to whether a person was a bargadar or not and to whom the share of the produce was deliverable, such question should be determined by the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1). By the very same Amendment Act, Sub-section (3) of Section 21 was also inserted and it was provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section 21 that if any question as to whether a person was or was not a bargadar would arise in the course of any proceeding before any Civil or Criminal Court, the Court should refer it to the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 for decision.

(3.) Mr. Maiti, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was apparent that the purpose of the said amendment of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 incorporating therein the expression 'or otherwise' was really to enable the officer empowered under Section 18 (1) to decide a dispute as to right of barga cultivation if such dispute had arisen in any civil or criminal suit or proceedings after the said question was referred to him under Section 21 (3) of the Act. For this contention Mr. Maiti cited two decisions of this Court. The first decision was made in the case of Chapala Bala Adhikari v. Monoranjan Das reported in (1975) 2 Cal LJ 447. Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. held in the said case that Sub-section (3) had used the expression 'suits and proceedings' so as to include therein different kinds of civil and criminal legal actions. The expression, 'in course of had denoted the different stages or steps in suits and proceedings. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act had contemplated that whenever the question whether a person was a bargadar or not would come up for decision in course of the suit or proceeding the Courts should refer the question to the authority mentioned in Section 18 (1) of the Act. It was held also by his Lordship that the word 'otherwise' had been inserted in Section 18 (2) to confer jurisdiction upon the officer or authority to decide the question whether a person was a bargadar or not and to whom the share of produce was deliverable even in the absence of any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1). After the amendment of Sub-section (2) even if such a question had arisen in any other way, the officer or authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 could assume jurisdiction under Sub-section (2) and determine the question. But the amplitude or the extent of their jurisdiction was still limited to the decision on the question, whether a person was a bargadar or not. It was held that Section 18 (2) was complementary to Section 21 (3) and the Court under Section 21 (3) could refer to the officer or authority mentioned in Section 18 (1) only such questions which would come within the ambit of determination under Section 18 (2).