DHARMADAS PAUL Vs. PULIN BIHARI HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alpore on the 15th June, 1978 in Title Appeal No. 526 of 1974 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned munsif, 2nd Court, Diamondharbour in title Suit No. 271 of 1973.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit was for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. It is the plaintiff's case that he cultivated the suit property with. the help of laborers and cultivated fish in the tanks of the suit property. The defendants had no interest or possession in the suit property and as the defendants threatened to disturb the plaintiff's possession, hence the suit and the reliefs prayed for as mentioned above. '

(3.) THE defendant's case was that the had been cultivating the suit land as a bargadar under the plaintiff for 16 years and he had been declared a bargadar in respect of plot No. 2052. He was in possession of 41 cents of land out of 70 cents in plot No. 2139 total being 1. 47 cents by the J. L. R. O concerned on 11. 10. 72 and the relevant records had been directed to be corrected by the order of the J. L. R. O On the ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned Munsif on a consideration of the evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal to the learned District Judge, the learned District Judge was pleased to refer the matter to the J. L. R. O in view of the provisions of section21 (3)of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The J. L. R. O report was in favour of the defendant at the time of hearing of the appeal. The learned Advocate for the respondent plaintiff challenged the validity of the report submitted by the j. L. R. O concerned. It was contended on behalf of the respondent (defendant)that the J. L. R. O. had given no notice to the respondent when holding the relevant enquiry u/s21 (3) as directed by the learned Judge. Accordingly; the proceedings before the J. L. R. O. is void and the report submitted by the J. L. R. O should not be relied upon as the principles of natural justice had been violated by denying -the plaintiff respondent an opportunity to place his case before the J. L. R. O. it was submitted in the lower Appellate Court that the J. L. R. O. should be asked to submit a second report after hearing the respondent who was vitally interested in the matter. The learned Judge was of the view that he had no power to interfere after j. L. R. O. has submitted his report. Therefore, the report submitted by the j. L. R. O. had to be accepted by the learned Judge. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal of the defendant appellant after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, in this second appeal the only ground on which the appeal has been admitted is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to direct the J. L. R. O. to submit a second report if it is found that no opportunity had been given to the plaintiff to present his case at the time of the enquiry held by the J. L. R. O. in connection with the enquiry u[s 21 (3) of the Land Reforms Act. In other words, the plaintiff had been denied a hearing at the time of enquiry held by the J. L. R. O. does that empower the civil court to interfere in the matter us 21 (3) of the West Bengal land and Reforms Act ?