SAMSUL HUDA Vs. MQSHARAF HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these revisional applications filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a common question of law is involved touching the maintainability of revisional applications under the aforesaid jurisdiction of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the said Code, in view of effect of Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 as has been urged by the learned Advocates of the respective Opposite Parties, in the different pending cases herein. It is contended by the learned Advocates for the Opposite Parties that in terms of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, hereinafter for brevity referred to as Tenancy Tribunal Act, a complete bar upon this Court has been imposed to entertain any revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as arose challenging the order of learned District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 9(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, hereinafter for brevity referred to as Land Reforms Act. It is contended that the District Judge who was vested with the power and jurisdiction to decide the appeal arose out of preemption application is not a Court and/or a Tribunal but a persona designata and accordingly is an authority in terms of Section 6 of said Tenancy Tribunal Act. Hence, revisional applications are not maintainable. On the contrary, it has been vehemently argued by the learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioners in respects of different cases that learned District Judge while exercising the power under Section 9(6) of the Land Reforms Act is a Court and not an authority in terms of the definition of the authority under Section 2(b) of the Tenancy Tribunal Act and as a consequence thereof, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, hereinafter for brevity referred to as Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction, power and authority to decide the legality and/or validity of order passed by the learned District Judge exercising such power, in terms of Section 6(a) of the said Tenancy Tribunal Act. For effective adjudication of the said questions and in view of submission of the learned Advocates for the Respondents relying upon a judgment of Single Bench of this Court passed in Kasinath Mondal and Ors. v. Bani Ballav Biswas and Ors., 2001 W.B.L. 451 (Cal.), the matter is required to be dealt with in details on analysing the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Kasinath Mondalw to have the answer on the point of maintainability. The first question to be considered whether the learned District Judge while exercising the power under Section 9(6) of the Land Reforms Act is an authority in terms of Section 2(b) of Tenancy Tribunal Act, Section 9(6) of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:

(2.) SECTIONS 2(b), 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Tenancy Tribunal Act, being the relevant provisions for adjudication of this case are also quoted in extenso herein below:

(3.) UNDER the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, District Judge also has been defined under Section 3(12) of the said Act, which reads as follows: