GIRISH CHANDRA MAJHI Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against two orders under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, one by a Conciliation Board passed under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act and another by the Appellate Officer, confirming the Board's order. By the said orders the Board and the Appellate Officer have rejected an application of the petitioner to recover from the opposite party some land held by the latter as a Bargadar under him.

(2.) The opposite party holds three plots of land under the petitioner as a Bargadar and we are informed that the barga settlement was taken about three or four years ago. Towards the middle of 1950, when the provisions of the West Bengal Bargadars Ordinance had not become generally known, the petitioner intimated to the opposite party his intention to terminate the barga settlement and to take over the possession of the land. Thereupon, on 17-6-1950, by which date the West Bengal Bargadars Act had been passed and had come into force, the Opposite Party made an application to the Sutahata Bhag Chasi Conciliation Board under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was trying to enter upon the land without obtaining the permission of the Board. That application came to be heard by the Board in due course after notice had been served on the petitioner and was disposed of by an order passed on 9-7-1950. The Board held that the petitioner was trying to take over possession of the land without obtaining the permission of the Board, which was illegal and, in that view, made an order that he would not be allowed "to terminate the cultivation by the bargadar." This order was in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act which is to the following effect :

(3.) The next step taken by the petitioner was that on 28-1-1951, he did what he had, on the former occasion, omitted to do, that is, he filed an application before the Board in which he set out his desire to cultivate the land by himself or by members of his family or by servants or by labourers and asked for an order, permitting him to terminate the cultivation of the land by the opposite party. That application was disposed of by the Board on 11-3-1951, when it was rejected. The finding of the Board was that the intention of the petitioner in asking for restoration of the land was ' vindictive.' The reasons given in support of the finding were that the petitioner owned considerable tracts of land, all of which he was unable to cultivate by himself and portions of which he had let out to other bargadars and, further, that the real reason why the petitioner had made the particular application appeared to the Board to be that the opposite party had incurred the petitioner's displeasure by resisting his attempt to take over possession of the land on the previous occasion.