ANWAR SHEIKH Vs. BANESWAR DAS PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 as plaintiff brought a suit being O. S. No. 208 of 1979 in the 2nd court of the learned Munsif at Jangipur, Murshidabad, against the petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also for other reliefs in respect of the suit property inter alia, on the allegations that the land comprised in Dag No. 2 in Khatian no. 74 under Mouza Suryapur, p. S. Sagardihi, District Murshidabad, was taken lease of by the Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 for 25 years from the owners thereof at a yearly rental of Rs. 999/ -. The said dag included a tank and also banks of the tank and the caveator/opposite Party No. 1 had developed portions of the said bank and was cultivating the same; that the petitioner was engaged as a daily labourer for the purpose of the said cultivation and he used a live at the Khamarbari belonging to the Caveator/opposite Party No. 1 and taking advantage of the said state of affairs, the petitioner thereafter made applications under Sections 144 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Caveator/opposite party No. 1 claiming barga right in respect of 8 bighas of land on the western side of the said Dag No. 2 and in connection that the said case the learned Sub-divisional executive Magistrate directed an enquiry to be made by the opposite party no. 2 i. e. the Junior Land Reforms Officer, sagardihi, who made an ex-parte enquiry and on the basis of such report the petitioner was claiming right in respect of the said land and was trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner therein.

(2.) THE petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement denying and disputing the material allegations made in the plaint and he further stated that the western portion of the said Dag No. 2 measuring about 8 bighas was being cultivated by the petitioner as a bargadar initially under one Gopal Chattopao3hyay and thereafter under Smt. Sibrani and subsequently under the Caveator/opposite Party no. 1 and he also delivered share of paddy to the Caveator/ opposite Party No. 1. In view of the specific case of the petitioner that he was a bargadar in respect of the said 8 big has of land, the learned Munsif passed an order referring the matter to the authority concerned under Section 21 (3) of the said Act for report. The concerned authority viz. the opposite party no. 2 after holding an enquiry found that the petitioner was made on 8. 11. 82 in Case No. 16 of 1982-83. The opposite party no. 2 after being satisfied from local enquiry that the petitioner had cultivated the said land, allowed the petitioner to harvest the paddy therefrom by his order dated 29. 10. 1984.

(3.) NO appeal, however, was preferred by the opposite party no. 1 against the said report and/or order by the opposite party no. 2 but he made an application purported to be one under Rule 6a of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules before the Additional District Magistrate (IR), Mushidabad which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 and the said Addl. District Magistrate by his order dated 14. 11. 1984 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order of the opposite party no. 2 and further restrained the petitioner from harvesting the paddy. The said Addl. District Magistrate by his subsequent order dated 8. 4. 85 allowed the petition filed by the opposite party no. 1 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1984 inter alia holding that the opposite party no. 2 while acting on the reference u/s. 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, could not have passed an order allowing the petitioner to cut away the paddy and that the opposite party no. 1 being a lessee, could not induct any bargadar in the suit land and that the land in questioning non-agricultural in nature, the order of the opposite party no. 2 was also not sustainable in law and hence, the petitioner should be restrained from going over the land unless the opposite party no. 2 gives a clear finding after hearing the opposite party no. 1 in the matter. The Addl. District Magistrate further held that he could also interfere into the matter under section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Against the orders dated 14. 11. 84, 8. 4. 1985 and 13. 3. 1985 passed by the said Addl. District Magtistrate, the petitioner moved a revisional application in this Court which gave rise to the present Civil Order.