JUGAL KISHORE SINGRI Vs. BHAGCHAS OFFICER RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law as to the scope of adjudication under section 19b of the West Bengal Land reforms Act, 1955 arises for decision in this Writ petition. Respondent No. 2 made an application before respondent no. 1, the Bhagchas Officer, Raipur, an officer specially empowered under section. 19b, inter alia, for an order of restoration of possession to plot No, 197 Khatian no. 281 Mouza Khailamwa P. S. Raipur district Bankura on an allegation that when he was cultivating the said plot as a bargadar under the petitioner, such cultivation was wrongly terminated by the petitioner. On such application a proceeding under section 19b of the said act was initiated and notice thereof was served on the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed a written statement denying any relationship of jotedar and bargadar between him and the respondent no. 2. On such an objection being taken the petitioner further claimed that respondent No. 2's application should be dismissed because the Bhagchas officer has no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute so raised by him. At this stage the Bhagchas Officer not having dismissed the application on such objection the petitioner moved this Court with the above Writ petition and obtained a Rule. The same objection has also been raised in this Writ petition and the question that has strongly been agitated is as to whether the Bhagchas officer has got any authority to go into the dispute as raised on the objection of the petitioner.

(2.) THE Rule is being contested by the respondent No. 2. Facts stated hereinbefore are not in dispute though the said respondent in his turn strongly claims that he is a bargadar under the petitioner.

(3.) MR. Saha, appearing in support of this Rule has contended that in a proceeding under section 19b of the said act the relationship having been denied the Bhagchas Officer has got no jurisdiction to decide an issue as to whether the applicant is or is not a bargadar. Mr. Saha has strongly relied on the provisions of sections 17 and 18 and particularly on the absence of any provision like section 18 (2) and section 19b, to support this contention. Reference has also been made to the provisions of section 21 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of matters provided for by sections 17 and 18 and not by section 19b. According to Mr. Saha section 19b confers a limited jurisdiction; it is only on the existence as a fact of wrongful termination of cultivation by a bargadar that the Bhagchas officer acquires the jurisdiction to make an order contemplated by section 19b. Mr. Saha contends that whether the claimant was or was not a bargadar is a part of the jurisdictional fact and when the jurisdiction of the Bhagchas Officer is dependent on the pre-existence of the jurisdictional fact he himself is not entitled to decide such an issue. According to Mr. Saha whereas in section 18the legislature intended to confer such jurisdiction to decide the jurisdictional fact, it made specific provision in section 18 (2) but that was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted section 19b.