(1.) A judgment has been delivered by Special Bench comprising of Three Judges of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 331 of 2009 on 14th July. 2011 by passing the following order:-
(2.) Despite such legal position about effect of Judgment as quoted above, this writ application could be considered for our adjudication, which has been filed assailing the order passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal applying the de facto and de jure doctrine. The principle has been illustrated by the Apex Court in several cases by holding, inter alia, hat even if the appointment of a Judge or a Presiding Officer or any Adjudicatory Forum stand cancelled or set aside, the decision or judgment pronounced shall not be illegal on that score, but merit of the said judgment could be decided by Court. The Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case Gokaraju Rangarajan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 3 SCC 132 held to this effect "a Judge, de facto is one who is not mere intruder or usurper but one who held office under colour of lawful authority, even though his appointment is defective and may later be found to be so. Whatever be the defect of his title to the office, judgments pronounced by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the power and function of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgment pronounced and acts done by a Judge de jure. Such is a defacto doctrine born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and needless mischief."
(3.) The Apex Court in the said case considered the views of different High Courts as well as the English Court, namely, the case Pulin Behari v. King Emperor , Emedisetti Ram Krishnaiah Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1967 AIR(AP) 193, P.S. Menon v. State of Kerala, 1970 AIR(Ker) 165. Millward v. Thatcher , Sodding v. Lorant . Re:-James (an insolvent), 1977 1 AllER 364; State of Connectient v. Carroll , Re:-Albridge,1893 15 NZLR 361 and Notton v. Sheby County .