Hamed Mondal vs Sudhangsu Sekhar Ghose

P.N. Mookerjee and S.K. Chakravarti, JJ.—This Rule was obtained by the Petitioner, who was a bhagchashi, against an appellate order of the learned Munsif allowing his eviction but, at the same time, refusing the opposite parties'' claim for share produce. The ground of eviction was contravention of the provisions of the statute (West Bengal Land Reforms Act) in the matter of delivery of produce to the owner or jotedar. In the present proceeding, in addition to the claim for eviction, there was also a claim for recovery of the share produce which was alleged not to have been delivered by the bargadars.

The Bhagchash Officer disallowed the claim for eviction but allowed the opposite parties'' claim for the barga produce which he valued at Rs. 80.

On appeal, the learned Munsif held that, as before him the claim for barga produce was given up, the jotedar. was entitled to an order for eviction.

In the above circumstances, the decision of the learned Munsif does not appear to run counter to any of the two sets of decisions cited before the tribunals below and, in the facts of this case, we are not satisfied that the said order should be upset.

A point was raised before us that the bargadar was entitled to relief, at least, under the new Section 18(2B) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It is clear, however, that the said new section, which was introduced only in the year 1965, was not in existence when the present proceeding was started or even when it was pending before the lower appellate tribunal. The said section, again, on its own terms and context [vide Section 8(c) of the amending Act], particularly in contrast with Clauses (b) and (a) of the said Section 8 of the above amending Act, introducing the preceding Sub-section (2A) and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 18, would clearly show that it was not intended to be retrospective. The relevant words of the said clauses are significant on this point as in Clauses (a) and (b) the same run as follows:

shall be added/inserted and shall be deemed always to have been added/inserted;

and, in Clause (c) the relative words are: ''shall be inserted''. This difference in language makes it absolutely clear that, while it was the intention of the Legislature that the above proviso and Sub-section (2A), introduced by the above Clauses (a) and (b), were meant to be retrospective, Sub-section (2B) introduced by the other Clause (c) was not intended to have that effect.

In the above view, we discharge this Rule.

There will be no order for costs.