SATISH CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. BHUPATI BHUSAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is at the instance of the second party petitioner in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed against an order dated] the 19th December, 1972, passed by the learned Magistrate, Hasnabad Camp Court in Case No. M-22 of 1972-73 directing; that the entire produce of the land be shared between the second party petitioner and the first party opposite party No. 1 on 50:50 basis.

(2.) THE facts leading on the Rule are short and simple. On an application filed by the first party opposite party No. 1 before the learned Magistrate, Camp Court, Hasnabad alleging inter alia, that he was a bargadar1 in respect of R. S. plot No. 2129 of Khatian no. 444 of mouza Sulkani measuring about 3 bighas and claimed his share of the produce of the suit land Case no. M-22 of 1972-73 was started under section 144 of the Code of Criminal procedure. No proceedings were drawn up specifically but the learned Magistrate sent the petition to the C. I. (L. R)for enquiry and report by the 8th december, 1972, by an. order passed on the 5th December, 1972. The matter was placed before the learned Camp magistrate, Hasnabad Camp Court on the 9th December, 1972, and there being no report a tag-id was issued fixing 12th december, 1972, as the next date. The report, however, came in the meanwhile and going through it, the date of hearing was fixed on 19th December, 1972. The report of the C. I. (L. R.)dated 12th December, 1972, inter alia, is that from the local enquiry it transpired that though Bhupati Bhusan mondal was a cultivator in respect of plot No. 2247, he was not able to cultivate the land in the current year as the owner forcibly ousted him from the land when he was ploughing the said land. The cultivation as mentioned in the report was completed by the second party after ousting the first party from the land. On the 19th december, 1972, the learned Magistrate heard both -the parties and ultimately held that he was satisfied that the first party is the bargadar in respect of plot No. 2247 and that he was1 restrain ed from cultivating the land forcibly in the current year and in view thereof, he ultimately ordered that the entire produce of the land in dispute be shared by the owner, Satish Ch. Mondal and the bargadar, Bhupati Bhusan Mondal on 50:50 basis. He further directed the O. C. Hasnabad to give effect to the order in presence of the officers by 24th December, 1972, and report compliance. Both the parties were informed accordingly. This order has been impugned and forms the subject matter of the present Rule.

(3.) MR. Harendra Nath Haider, Advocate, appearing in support of the rule submitted that both in law and on merits the order is wholly unsustainable and in fact is not only de hors the provisions of section 144 of the Code of criminal Procedure bur also in direct conflict with the relevant provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Mr. Haider contended in this context that the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate, Hasnabad Camp court, to take the same into consideration has not only resulted in a failure of justice but also in a non formate to the procedure established by law. In this behalf he also relied on some cases. Mr. Samar Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 submitted in his fairness that the procedure adopted is not in accordance with what established by law and the necessary direction should be given so that the first party opposite party No. 1 Bhupati Bhusan mondal may seek his remedy in the proper court.