REVENUE OFFICERS Vs. ASIT KUMAR BONDYOPADHAYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts involved in this appeal inter alia, are that one Nemai Charan Bondopadhyay, by a duly executed and registered deed of Nirupanpatra dated December 9, 1946 gave his properties in different proportion to his six sons and two sisters. The donees were delivered possession of the properties and got their names mutated in the records the landlords and paid rent payable in respect of their respective shares in the properties both in the district settlement record of rights and in the revisional settlement of record of rights. The properties in question were recorded in the name of the petitioner. The original donor, namely, Nemai Charan Bondopadhyay filed a return in Form-"B" exercising option to retain the lands which were left to him. After the execution of the Nirupanpatra a Big Raiyat case being No. 514/111 of 1968 was started in respect of the properties held by the said Nemai Charan Bandopadhyaya and the said case was ultimately dropped and the Revenue Officer by order dated 13th February, 1969 allowed the said Nemai Charan Bandopadhyaya to return 20.70 acres agricultural land along with 3.71 acres non-agricultural and 1.81 acres homestead land. Thereafter the concerned Revenue Officer started proceeding under section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in case No.143-155 of 1970-71 on or about August 20, 1970 for correction of the record of rights, after death of the said Nemai Ch Bandopadhyaya after bringing on record his heirs and made enquiry. Ultimately the Revenue Officer by his order cancelled the revisional record rights and reopened the Big Raiyat Case No. 514/111 of 1968.

(2.) After passing the judgment in Case No.143-155 of 1970-71 the Revenue Officer reopened the Big Raiyat Case 514/111 on December 28, J and by his order dated January 25, 1971 the said Revenue Officer found the transfer by way of Nirupanpatra was of a, clandestine nature and cancelled the said transfer and restored the land in the name of Nemai Charan Bandopadhyaya. Consequently the lands held by Nemai Ch Bandopadhyaya was calculated at more than admissible ceiling limit the Revenue Officer vested 154.84 acres of agricultural land besides other kinds of lands in the estate. The respondent being aggrieved by said orders passed in the Case No.146 under section 44(2A) and the Raiyat Case under section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act moved this court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction wherein was issued being C.R. 2285 (W) of 1971. The said rule ultimately came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen (as Lordship then was) and by order dated, September 17, 1974 the said was made absolute and the orders passed in the case under section 44 (2A) and the aforesaid Big Raiyat case was set aside. It is the case of the writ petition although both the proceedings and orders in respect of section 44(2A) and the Big Raiyat Case under section 6(1) was challenged through inadvertance, in the previous writ petition only Case No. 146 of 1970-71 was mentioned, as a result authorities concerned acted in compliance of the order passed by the High Court only in respect of Case No. 146 of 1970 but not in respect of other cases. It appears from the averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition that the authorities concerned themselves were first misled and made necessary correction in accordance with the judgment of this case being No.143 to 155 but thereafter reopened the case and made correction only in respect of 146 of 1970-71. In the writ petition it has been stated that it. was a case of bona fide mistake and the order passed in the said civil rule being No.2285 (W) of 1971 should cover all the case Nos. 143-155 of 1970-71 and Big Raiyat Case No. 514/111. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said Revenue Officer concerned again sought to go back to the question of benami but admitted that they were equally inadvertant in construing the order passed by this court. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the orders impugned were set aside and the rule issued in the said writ petition was made absolute. The appellant felt aggrieved by the said order making the rule absolute. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) We are unable to find any way to interfere with the order under appeal. It is well selled that in a tier system, decisions of higher authorities are binding on lower authorities and quasi-judicial Tribunals are also bound by this discipline. In Cassell & Co. vs. Broome reported in (1972) 1 All England Reports 801 the Lord Chancellor delivering the opinion of the House observed-"I hope it will never be necessary to say so again, that, in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers". In the case of Kausalya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1984) 2 SCC 324 it was observed by the Supreme Court that judicial discipline requires a decorum known to law warrants that appellate jurisdiction should be taken as binding and followed. Supreme Court in the subsequent case of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported ill (1988) 3 SCC 579 also observed that quasi-judicial tribunals are also bound by this discipline. Accordingly in our opinion since there is already a finding by the High Court in C.R. No. 2285 (W) of 1971 that finding should be followed by the Revenue Officer which is a quasi-judicial authority.