SISIR KUMAR ADAK Vs. AMITAVA SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) Challenge has been made in this writ application assailing the order dated 21st June, 2002 passed in O.A. No.3306 of 2001 (LRTT) by the learned Tribunal below, on the question of jurisdiction of said Tribunal to adjudicate any application wherein the decree of the Civil Court is under challenge. It appears from the impugned order that a pre-emption application was filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and therefrom a Misc. Appeal laid by the aggrieved party and assailing the order passed in the preemption appeal, the original application was moved. The question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider the grievance of any party assailing the order passed in pre-emption appeal, is not res Integra. Regarding jurisdiction of learned Tribunal below to adjudicate any application assailing the order passed under section 9 said Act by learned District Judge in pre-emption appeal, one of us Pratap Kumar Ray, J. in the case of Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Hussain,2002 WbLR 654 which was heard along with other Civil Revision matters filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India expressed the view that remedy of aggrieved party against the order of pre-emption appeal was to assail the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Judge. In the judgment Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Husain the Court discussed the meaning of the word 'authority' and held that the Court of ld. District Judge, cannot be an authority under W.B. Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and District Judge under was not a persona designata, but a Court, within the frame work of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. As there was a conflict in the opinion with another Hon'ble Judge of this Court, who decided the case Kashinath Mondal & Ors. vs. Bani Ballau Biswas & Ors.,2001 2 CalLJ 319, holding, inter alia, that the revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable against the order passed by the ld. District Judge in an appeal, under section 9 of the said Act of 1955, one of us Pratap Kumar Ray, J. referred the matter to the larger Bench for decision by discussing in details the legal situation in the said case Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Hussain . The Division Bench comprising of A.K. Mathur, CJ., as His Lordship then was and Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. heard the matter which is reported under cause title Pashupati Adhikary vs. Pradyut Kumar, 2003 4 CalHN 347 only with other matters and held that view taken in the case Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Hussain was right view.

(3.) The said Division Bench answered the issue in paragraph 27 of the report which reads such: