PRABIR KUMAR PATTANAYAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in this Rule is whether a decision of the Bhagchas Officer given in a reference made by a Criminal Court under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is subject to an appeal under section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In the present case, the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate Sadar (South) Midnapur in a pending proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure code made a reference to the Bhachas Officer, Danton under section 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for a decision whether the opposite parties to the said proceeding were actually bargadars or not. The Bhagchas Officer concerned by his order dated 21st November, 1975 decided that the opposite parties in the said case were actually bargadars of the land in question. Prabir Kumar Pattanayak, the petitioner in the present Rule, being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal under section 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Collector, Midnapur, dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the case did not come up under the provisions of Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act but under orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (South), Midnapore in consequence of a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before him.

(2.) I have considered the question raised in the present Rule in my Judgment in Chapala Bala Adhikari v. Monoranjan Das reported in 1975 (2) C.L.J. 447. I have pointed out in paragraph 12 of my Judgment in Chapala Bala Adhikari v. Monoranjan Das (Supra) that before the insertion of the word 'otherwise' in sub-section (2) of section 18 by the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1974 the Jurisdiction of the officer or authority mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 18 to decide the question whether a person was bargadar or not was conditional or dependent upon existence of a dispute referred to in sub-section (1). The authority or officer in deciding such a dispute under sub-section (1) could incidentally determine under sub-section (2) the question whether a person was a bargadar or not. The word 'otherwise' has been inserted in section 18 to confer jurisdiction upon the said officers or authorities to decide the question whether a person was a bargadar or not or to whom the share of produce is deliverable even in the absence of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1). After the said amendment of sub-section (2) even if such a question arises in any other different way the officers or authorities under sub-section (1) of section 18 can assume Jurisdiction under sub-section (2) and determine the question. I have further observed in Chapala Bala's case (supra) that section 18(2) was complementary to section 21(3) of the Act. In paragraph 17 of my Judgment in the above case. I have observed: "Sub-section (3) of section 21 provides for a reference of the question whether a person is a bargadar or not o the officer or authority mentioned in section 18(1) but neither the West Bengal Land Reforms Act nor the Rules prescribed under the Act lay down the detailed procedure for determination of the said question. Section 20(1) lays down that the procedure to be followed in deciding the dispute or appeals under Chapter III and the fees to be paid by the parties stall be as may be prescribed. Nothing was placed before me to establish that until now Rules have been prescribed for disposal of the question referred under sub-section (3) of section 21. The Rule 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Bargadars Rules, 1965, which prescribed the manner of making an application for decision in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of section 18 is not appropriate in the context of section 21(3). The officers or authorities in determining the question referred to them under section 21(3) undoubtedly exercise quasi-judicial powers. Therefore they are bound to act in consonance with the fundamental principles of justice. The authorities are required to give opportunity of hearing to both parties, record evidence if adduced by the parties and to decide the question fairly, impartially and objectively, i.e. in the manners a tribunal or a quasi-judicial body acts. Sub-section (1) of section 19 provides for appeal against any order made under Section 17 or section 18 except where an order is made with the consent of the parties to the dispute. The Officer or authority mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 18 in determining a question referred under sub-section (3) of section 21 exercises his power under section 18(2). Therefore a determination of the question under section 21(3) read with section 18(2) would be appealable. The West Bengal Land Reforms Act has not also laid down the procedure to be adopted by the civil or the criminal courts after the authorities or officers under sub-section (1) of section 18 determine the question referred to them under section 21 (3). But sub-section (1) of section 21 would be applicable also in respect of a determination of a question referred under section 21(3). Under sub-section (1) of section 21 no order or other proceeding whatsoever made under chapter III can be questioned in any Civil Court and no Civil Court can entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioned in sections 17 and 18. Accordingly a determination of the question referred in section 21(3) cannot be questioned before the court which had referred the question. After receipt of the finding on the question whether a person is a bargadar or not, the Court will proceed to determine remaining issues.

(3.) I find no reason to revise my above views with regard to the scope and effect of an order under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In my view, a decision upon a reference under Section 21(3) must be considered as a determination under Section 18(2) of the Act. Section 19 makes any order under Section 18 appealable. The expression 'any order' in this present context means every order passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 18. Therefore, an appeal against a determination made under Section 18(2) would be maintainable.