RADHARAMAN PURKAYET Vs. SADHAN CHANDRA BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff opposite party, Sadhan Chandra Barik filed a title suit, being t. S. No. 93 of 1974, in the First Court of the Munsif at Diamond Harbour against the defendant-petitioner praying for a declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the suit laid described in schedule Khas to the plaint. The defendant-petitioner entered appearance and claimed that he was a Bargadar in respect of the suit land and on april 7, 1975 filed an application before the learned Munsif for referring to the bhagchas Officer for a decision of the question whether the defendant was a bargadar or not in accordance with the provisions of section 21 (3) of the West. Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The learned Munsif by order No. 26 dated june 17, 1975 rejected the petitioner's application holding, inter alia, that the dispute between the parties was the subject matter of a 'suit' and the order prayed for would tantamount to the passing of an interlocutory order in the 'suit' as it would not be a proceeding and as such as in section 21 (3) of the act the word 'proceeding' and not 'suit' has been used he had no authority to refer the question to the Bhagchas officer. This Order of the learned munsif has been impugned in this Rule.

(2.) IN my view, this application must succeed Section 21 (3) of the Act is in the following terms :-

(3.) IT is clear from a reading of the aforesaid sub-section that the word proceeding is wide enough to cover a suit. It this was not so, then, if a question whether a person was or was not a bargadar arose in a suit, then the authority constituted under the Act to determine this question would have no jurisdiction to do. This could not possibly be the intention of the legislature which has created a special authority under the Act to determine the aforesaid question.