Bamapada Chakraborty vs Patit Paban Sardar

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This appeal is by the Defendants and it arises out of a suit for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are tenants in the suit land and the C.S. record, recording them as bargadars, is wrong. There is a further prayer for permanent injunction.

The suits as contested by the Defendants, whose defence, on the merits, was that the Plaintiffs were bargadars and not tenants and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

On the first question, both the Courts below have concurrently found on evidence that the Plaintiffs'' case of tenancy has been established and the defence, contention that the Plaintiffs are bargadars has not been proved.

Admittedly, the Plaintiffs'' predecessor was a tenant. But the defence case was that he was a tenant only for one year and after that period, his tenancy was abandoned. This, the Courts below have pointed out, would contradict the District Settlement records, which show the contrary and will also be inconsistent with the Defendants'' own evidence. In that view, the defence story that the Plaintiffs'' predecessor''s tenancy came to an end has been rejected and on that finding, the recent settlement records, recording the Plaintiffs as bargadars, have been held to be wrong or, in other words, the Courts below have agreed that, in the above circumstances, the presumption from the recent settlement records or the revisional settlement records has been rebutted. It is only necessary to add that, in view of what I have stated above, the aforesaid conclusion of the Courts below is not challengeable in second appeal and it must be accepted.

On the other question, the Courts below have overruled the defence on the point of jurisdiction by holding that the relevant sections of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, namely, Sections 16 to 21, do not intend to take away the entire jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the matter of determination of status, or, in other words, that the jurisdiction, conferred by the above Act on the appropriate officer or authority in that behalf, is a limited jurisdiction for the purposes of the proceedings, mentioned in the said sections and to that extent, that is, so far as the orders in those proceedings, or, the proceedings themselves are concerned, no challenge is permissive in the Civil Court. This view would receive support from Jadu Nath Roy and Others Vs. Lal Mohan Malik and Others, and Sarat Chandra Panda and Others Vs. SK. Amin Ali and Others, , though the present question was apparently, left open there.

In my view, that is the proper reading of the above provisions of the Land Reforms Act and it would be wrong to extend their scope and to out the entire jurisdiction of the Civil Court on questions of status. The decision under the Land Reforms Act on the question of status must, in the context, be taken to be incidental to the decision of the questions, exclusively arising under the said statute and for the purposes of the proceedings mentioned therein or contemplated thereunder. It should not be given any extended or wider scope. In this view, I overrule also the defence objection as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the present matter.

In the result, this appeal fails and it will be dismissed. There will be no order for costs in this Court.