LAWS(CAL)-1980-5-12

DEBALARANI NANDY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On May 05, 1980
DEBALARANI NANDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that proceeding under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has been initiated before the Bhag Chas Court over a dispute relating to delivery of Bhag produce by an alleged Bargadar. The petitioners prayed before the Bhag Chas Officer that their cases should be represented by their Constituted Attorney and/or authorised agent but the said prayer was rejected.

(2.) MR. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the state pointed out that by a Notification by the Board of Revenue dated 3-5-79 it was decided that to avoid delay and other complication representation by an authorised agent should not be allowed. But there is a specific provision in the Rule itself being sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules 1956 "that a proceeding before the Bhag Chas Court may be represented by the applicant or by his agent duly authorised by him and law is well settled that executive instruction can only supplement but cannot supplant statutory rules. Accordingly, an order rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to be represented by their constituted Attorney and/or authorised agent should be quashed and it is directed that the Bhag Chas Officer will allow the petitioners to get their case represented either by their constituted Attorney or by a duly authorised agent in accordance with the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. It appears that in the meantime, three persons have been examined in the instant proceeding. The petitioners should, therefore, be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said three persons already, examined. With these observations, the application is disposed of. The Bhag Chas Officer will give a notice to the petitioners about the next date of hearing and such notice should be given at least a week before the date of hearing so that the petitioners can get themselves ready. By way of abundant caution, it is made clear that other contentions made in the writ petition have been kept open as it is not necessary to decide the said contentions at this stage. There will be no order as to costs in this application. application allowed.