ARJUN RANJIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Rule have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Hasnabad, asking them and also the respondent nos.5 to 8 from entering in the land which was a bone of contention between these two sets of parties. The Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad by a notice also directed both parties not to enter upon the suit land. It further appears that the said purported restraint order was made pending an enquiry by the Junior Land Reforms Officer regarding a dispute between the two sets of parties.

(2.) In my view, both the Junior Land Reforms Officer and the Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station, have no authority to pass interim restraint order in the manner done in the present case. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the enquiry referred to in the impugned notice was being conducted by the Junior Land Reforms Officer in the exercise of any statutory powers. According to the materials on record there was a proceeding under Chapter III of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act between two sets of parties wherein the Bhagchas Officer purported to find that the respondent nos.5 to 8 were not bargadars. The said decision was subject to an appeal under S. 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It does not appear from the records that the persons so aggrieved by the said order, had filed any such appeal. In my view, the Junior Land Reforms Officer was not the appellate authority under S. 19 of the Act. Further it has already been settled by a number of decisions of this court that at the relevant time the Junior Land Reforms Officer was not clothed with powers under S. 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The dispute between the two sets of parties related to claim of status and right to possess and cultivate the disputed land. Adjudication of such disputes should take place before competent authority and/or court. In case of a dispute about possession the approach may be made also to appropriate Civil or Criminal Court, but neither the Junior Land Reforms Officer nor the Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station could arrogate to themselves powers which patently belong to Civil and Criminal Courts. Therefore, the interim order of restraint made in the instant case was patently without jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr. Chakravortty, learned Advocate for the contesting respondents submitted that police have appeared to pass such restraint orders. But when Mr. Chakravortty failed to produce any authority or law in support of his said submission it must be held that there is no merit in the same. I may add that the police authority has certainly powers to take steps in the matter of commission of cognizable offence. But the said powers do not include power to make interim restraint orders. In the above view, this Rule is bound to succeed, but at the same time I make it clear that in this Rule no finding is made about the status of the parties or regarding the possession of the disputed land. Further nothing said in this order will prevent the appropriate authorities from taking steps for prevention of breach of peace and also to act and proceed according to law. Subject to the above observations, I make this Rule absolute.