AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhasis Dasgupta, J
This is to consider a review application filed by Chief Executive Officer/petitioner against the order dated 07.08.2019, passed by this court in connection with C.O. No. 2966 of 2018 alleging that order directing remand asking Chairman, Wakf Tribunal to hear out the matter afresh the prayer of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 54 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and to decide the matter in terms of the directions contained therein, giving sufficient opportunities to the opposite parties, unnecessarily travelled beyond the scope of Section 54 of the Wakf Act, that the Wakf property having described to be a disputed property in the order itself, there occurred error apparent on the face of the record, that in connection with a proceeding under Section 54 (4) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the learned Wakf Tribunal was not left with any power to go deep into the question for determination of the status of Wakf property and accordingly sought for review of the order.
In connection with C.A.N. application No. 8770, the petitioner was granted leave to file the application for review without the certified copy of the order dated 7th August, 2019, passed by this court.
By another C.A.N. application being No. 8769 of 2019, the petitioner sought for a direction, directing Wakf Tribunal to dispose of the Eviction Case of 1 of 2017, under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, within a specified period of time, while ensuring compliance of the directions contained in the order passed by this court on 7th August, 2019, in connection with C.O. No. 2966 of 2018.
It appears that on 07.11.2019, the petitioner furnished certified copy of the impugned order pursuant to the leave being granted earlier in this case.
Learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that review application would not be maintainable on the ground that the decision reached by the curt was erroneous, what actually the petitioner had contended in this case. Thus, according to opposite parties by filing this review application, the petitioner proposed to reopen the proceedings touching upon the merits of the case, which could be done only by way of filing appeal and not by review application.
It was strongly contended by the opposite parties that the grounds taken were neither on account of some mistake, nor error apparent on the face of record, or any other sufficient reasons. The grounds so taken, according to opposite parties, were relatable to the merits of the case, which should not be gone into reopening the case by exercising the power of review, as available under order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
Learned advocate for the petitioner while proposing for review on such grounds mentioned herein above, sought to rely upon a judgment delivered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Executive Director, F.C.I. & Ors. Vs. Subhas Pramanik & Ors. reported in 2019 (1) CLJ (Cal) 533, wherein it was propounded that power of review could be exercised for any error whatsoever on the face of the record.
Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 7th August, 2019, passed by this court in C.O. No. 2966 of 2018, it appears that under the garb of an encroachment proceedings, the opposite parties were sought to be evicted after having accepted the case of alleged tenancy of the opposite parties, revealed from the previous institution of eviction suit against the opposite parties.
Since, the provision incorporated under Section 3(aa) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, exempted public Wakf property from the application of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 providing statutory protection to tenant, mere perusal of Wakfnama, in the event of its production, if needed, as per desire of the Tribunal, incidental to the determination of the prayer of C.E.O. under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, holding the opposite parties to be a encroachers, will not necessarily render the status of the Wakf property, what it exists right now, to any other state, contrary to the case of petitioner, as made out.
As such the property, as alleged to have been misdescribed, not being rightly construed was neither a mistake, nor an error apparent on the face of the record.
The grounds thus, taken in support of the prayer for review are neither on account of some mistake, nor error on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reasons as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. Change of finding based upon consideration of facts, presented by both sides cannot be reopened by review application alleging the impugned order to be erroneous.
The review application fails.
Since this court has already considered all the points raised by the petitioner, while disposing of C.O. No. 2966 of 2018, and which was disposed of on 07.08.2019, and with such disposal of the revisional application, this court already lost its seisin over the case.
Furthermore, with the dismissal of review application, it would not be appropriate to pass any direction in terms of C.A.N application No. 8769 of 2019, soliciting a direction specifying some time period for disposal of the pending application in connection with Eviction Case 1 of 2017 of Chairman of Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal.
Though technically there cannot be any direction for expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings before the Chairman, Wakf Tribunal, with the dismissal of this review application, but this court hopes and trusts that the Chairman, Wakf Tribunal will take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of such pending proceedings before it.
With these observations, the review application and the connecting two C.A.N applications stand disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order and judgment, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with the all necessary formalities.