Panchanan Paik vs State of West Bengal

M.N. Roy, J.—It appears that the Respondents Nos. 4(a)-4(c) Naim Mondal, Raisuddin Mondal and Abbas Mondal filed an application being case No. 22 of 1973 before the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Habra, L.R. Circle, 24-Parganas, the Respondent No. 2, against the Petitioner claiming to be bargadars and prayed for necessary recording. The said Junior Land Reforms Officer by order No. 6 dated December 7, 1973, on consideration of the available evidence allowed the said application. The said order has been impeached in this Rule.

The Petitioners have alleged that they along with the pro forma Respondent No. 2, Birendra Nath Mondal, were and are owners of 2.90 acres of land and have been in khas possession of the said land. It has also been alleged that they have cultivated the land with the help of their own labourers along with other hired labourers and because of the fact of such possession, their names have been duly recorded in the finally published records. It has further been alleged by them that Ayub Ali Mondal, pro forma Respondent No. 1, who is the father of the said Respondents Nos. 4(a)-4(c), was a labourer under them and the said pro forma Respondent No. 2 for 1377 B.S. and he cultivated the land in question along with some other lands at a total cost of Rs. 600 and the Petitioners and the said pro forma Respondent No. 2 have duly received the entire produce for the said year on payment of the sum as mentioned above. It has also been alleged that they have also cultivated the land in dispute along with other lands for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 B.S. It further appears from the pleading that after the impugned order the Petitioners had filed T.S. No. 551 of 1973 in the Court of the Second Munsif at Barasat for having the said Respondents Nos. 4(a)-4(c) permanently restrained from disturbing their possession or from dispossessing them and in fact, an ad interim order of injunction had been issued on December 12, 1973 and the same is still pending. It has been alleged further that even in spite of the said order the said Respondents forcibly took away the paddy belonging to the Petitioners and for that they have also instituted criminal proceeding which is pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barasat.

In the instant case, the Petitioners have challenged the determination as made by the Junior Land Reforms Officer as totally unauthorised and without jurisdiction as the said officer has not been specially empowered as a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 50 of the land Reforms Act. In that view of the matter, the Petitioners have submitted that all acts done by the said officer and steps taken by him in the connected proceeding, including the passing of the impugned order, was improper and void. The Petitioners have thus contended that the assumption of jurisdiction by the said officer is improper and irregular apart from the fact that the said order is also bad, void and against principles of natural justice inasmuch as in making the same, the said officer, without giving the Petitioners an opportunity, has relied on a secret report by the Tahasildar.

The submissions of the Petitioners have been contested by the Respondents Nos. 4(a) to 4(c) and 5 on merits and apart from that, they have relied on two gazetted notifications which are quoted hereunder:

(1) No. 9838-L. Ref. 5th June, 1967

(Published in the issues of Calcutta Gazette dated June 22, 1967.)

In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (12) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956), the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint all Junior Land Reforms Officers in each district within West Bengal to discharge the functions of a Revenue Officer u/s 33 of the said Act within their respective jurisdiction.

(2) 24-Parganas--No. 11736 L. Ref./8P-12/70--29th August, 1970. (Published in the issues of Calcutta Gazette dated October 15, 1970.)

In exercise of the power conferred by Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956), the Governor is pleased hereby to specially empower the Revenue Officers named below to maintain in accordance with the provisions of the said section read with Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, the record-of-rights prepared, finally published and modified under the provisions of the West Bengal states Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act I of 1954), in respect of their respective jurisdiction in the district of 24-Parganas:

(1) Shri Santosh Kumar Chakraborty, J.L.R.O.

(2) Shri Amal Krishna Mondal, J.L.R.O., Habra.

for the purpose of showing that the officer concerned in the instant case was duly empowered. Those apart, the said Respondents furl her contended that in view of the admitted position, viz., the Petitioners have filed a title suit on the self-same grounds and have obtained an ad interim order of injunction, this Court should not entertain this application and furthermore, the Petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts or at least making a false statement while-obtaining the Rule, particularly when they have mentioned that pro forma Respondent No. 2 was not made a party in the connected bhagchas case. The learned Advocate for the said Respondents produced the certified copy of the impugned order for the purpose of establishing that the said pro forma Respondent No. 2 Birendra Nath Mondal was duly impleaded in the said proceedings. Such wrong statement in the petition, it was further submitted by the said learned Advocate, had perhaps mislead the Court at the time of the issue of the Rule.

The other Respondents to this Rule have not filed any opposition. Mr. Mallick appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1-3 apart from producing the records, adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 4(a) to 4(c) and 5.

Thus, the first and foremost question which requires to be decided in this case is whether the Junior Land Reforms Officer in the instant case was duly empowered for the exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which deals with the maintenance of the record-of-rights and is in the following terms:

The Revenue Officer especially empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall maintain up-to-date in the prescribed manner, the village record-of-rights by incorporating therein the changes on account of

(a) mutation of names as a result of transfer or inheritance:

(b) partition, exchange or consolidation of lands comprised in holding, or establishment of Co-operative Farming Societies:

(c) new settlement of lands or of holdings;

(d) variation of revenue;

(e) alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example, by a bargadar;

(f) such other cases as necessities a change in the record-of-rights.

The term ''Revenue Officer'' has been described in Section 2(12) of the said Act in the following manner:

''Revenue Officer'' means am officer whom the State Government may appoint by name or by virtue of his office to discharge any of the functions of a Revenue Officer in any area.

It appears from the notification dated June 5, 1967, particulars whereof have been quoted hereinbefore, that all Junior Land Reforms Officers in each district within West Bengal have been notified by order of the Governor, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2(12) of the Act, to discharge the functions of Revenue Officers u/s 33 of the Act which deals with grounds for alteration of revenue. The said section in particular lays down that the revenue payable by a raiyat may be altered in the manner prescribed by the Revenue Officer if the holding of the raiyat has increased or decreased in the area due to amalgamation, purchase, partition, subdivision, acquisition or any other cause whatsoever subsequent to the determination of revenue. In the instant case, there has also been no dispute that the impugned determination was made by Shri Amal Krishna Mondal and it appears that the said Shri Mondal, by the notification dated August 29, 1970, particulars whereof have been set out hereinbefore, has been specially empowered by the Governor of West Bengal, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the said Act to maintain in accordance with the provisions of the said section read with Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1955, the record-of-rights prepared, finally published and modified under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, in respect of their respective jurisdiction in the district of 24-Parganas. In the said notification the said Shri Mondal, i.e. the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned has been described as the Revenue Officer.

Mr. Panda, as stated hereinbefore, contended on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no proper and due act empowering the Respondent No. 2 as Revenue Officer in terms of the requirements of Section 50 and the earlier notification dated June 5, 1967, he submitted, only empowered the Junior Land Reforms Officers of the districts for the purposes of Section 33 which purposes are distinct from the purposes as mentioned in Section 50. Apart from his other submissions about the maintainability and bona fide nature of the application Mr. Acharya, the learned Advocate for the Respondents Nos. 4(a)-4(c) and 5 submitted that when by the earlier notification of June 1957 nil the Junior Land Reforms Officers have been made Revenue Officers and thereafter the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned in the instant case has been mentioned as such Revenue Officer and empowered to do certain acts to maintain in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 read with Rule 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules. 1955, the record-of-rights prepared, finally published and modified under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, so the officer concerned in the instant case should also be deemed to be an officer duly empowered for the purposes of Section 50 of the Act. He further submitted that in terms of Section 2(12) of the Act, the Officer in the instant case, in view of the earlier notification dated June 5, 1967, should also be treated, considered and held to be the Revenue Officer as he has already been appointed to discharge his functions, as such, u/s 33 and for that reason he would come within the qualifying words as mentioned by the words ''any of the functions of a Revenue Officer in any area'' in the said section.

So one will have to find out what should in the instant case be the meaning of the word ''any'' preceding the words ''of the functions'' in Section 2(12) of the Act. If it is found that any of the functions as mentioned therein would mean that an officer discharging any of the functions of a Revenue Officer in any area would be a ''Revenue; Officer-'', then the next question for consideration would be whether the provisions of Section 50 would also require such Revenue Officer to be specially empowered for the purposes as mentioned therein.

The word ''any'', as has been observed in Duck v. Bates (1883) 12 O.B.D. 79, excludes limitation or qualifications. The said word means one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind, one or another taken at random. The said word further means every or all or something unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number or extent. In fact, the said word connotes wide generality and its use as has been observed in the case of B. Veeraswamy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, points to distributive construction. The expression ''in any case'' occurring in Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act came up for consideration in the case of Pershad Singh and Ors. v. Ram Pertab Roy ILR 22 Cal. 77 where a Bench decision of this Court has interpreted the same as being qualified to ''in every case''. Similarly, the expression ''any agreement to the contrary'' has been interpreted in Wooler v. North Eastern Breweries (1910) 1 K.B. 247 to apply to an agreement whether made before or after the Act. In the case of Keshar Bin Dhondi Sinde and Anr. v. Jairam Bin Gangaram Pawar ILR 33 Bom. 123 the Bombay Court has refused to apply the principle of ejusdem generis in interpreting the word ''any''. Thus, it is clear that the word ''any'' should be given a meaning as wide as possible in the context of a given case, keeping in view the fact that in construing a statutory provision, every word occurring therein must be given its proper meaning. The words ''any word of the Municipal Borough'' has been interpreted in the case of Veerappa Shiddalingappa Virupathi and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. AIR 1965 Mys. 227 as including every ward of the Municipal Borough. The word ''any'' may in certain context imply ''all''. The words ''any of the directors'' as used in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, came up for consideration in the case of The Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Lala Karam Chand Thapar etc., and the said words have been interpreted to mean ''every one of the directors''. Apart from these, in the case of In Re: Sunderji Laljee Khakhar, it has been pointed out that the word ''any'' can be used as meaning ''one'' as contrasted with ''more than one''. The said word ''any'' is also used as covering several, i.e. meaning ''all'' and it appears from Strouds'' Judicial Dictionary that the said word, according to the context, can bear either meaning. Although the word ''any'', as mentioned hereinbefore, has a very wide application and the same may sometimes mean ''all'' even then keeping in view that in construing a statutory provision every word occurring therein must be given its proper meaning. I am of the view that the word ''any'', as mentioned hereinbefore, on a construction of the other provisions of the Act, would not mean that when an officer is appointed as such for any section, he would at once become the Revenue Officer in terms of requirements of the Act for all purposes and more particularly for all the sections whenever such appointment is needed or mentioned. Thus, the authorisation by the notification of June 5, 1967, which incidentally is for the purposes of Section 33 of the Act, would not make those officers as Revenue Officers for purposes of the other sections of the Act and in the instant case, for purposes of Section 50. For the purpose of that section specific authorisation is necessary and that also is apparent from the opening words of the section itself, viz. there must be special authorisation of the Revenue Officer by the State Government ''in this behalf which means for maintenance of the record-of-rights which would again mean proper maintenance of the record-of-rights. In the instant case, there has admittedly been an authorisation to a named Junior Land Reforms Officer, viz. Amal Krishna Mondal, by notification of August 29, 1970 in terms of Section 50 of the Act read with Rule 21 of the Rules as framed thereunder. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the Junior Land Reforms Officer in the instant case has been specially empowered as the Revenue Officer. Now, the next question would be whether in view of such authorisation the said officer was authorised to make the recording of the names of bargadars in favour of the Respondents Nos. 4(a)-4(c) and 5 Section 50, amongst others, includes the functions of a Revenue Officer, so empowered, for effecting alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example, by a bargadar and also to effect changes on account of such other cases as necessitate a change in the record-of-rights. In the instant case, when there is an authorisation in favour of the Respondent No. 2, viz. the officer concerned, in terms of Section 50 read with Rule 21 of the Rules, so the further question which is required to be whether such authorisation is enough for recording the names of bargadars by the said officer, viz. the Junior Land Reforms Officer. The fact that Junior Land Reforms Officers can effect such changes when authorised, do also find support from the determination of P.K. Banerjee J. dated August 13, 1975, made in C.R. No. 4689(W) of 1974 (Sukumar Mondal v. Junior Land Reforms Officer, Bhangore II and Ors. The said case was cited by Mr. Panda for the purpose of establishing that unless duly empowered the Junior Land Reforms Officers, as in the instant case, cannot have any authority to make the necessary recording of bargadar which would in effect mean revision of the existing record-of-rights and consequently the preparation of new records. In that case, a notice was issued upon the Petitioner, who was the owner of a particular plot of land for the purpose of recording the names of bargadars in the record-of-rights and such act being challenged, his Lordship held that the Junior Land Reforms Officer, not being authorised by any act to issue a notice, cannot give notice for the purpose of recording the names of bargadars in the record-of-rights. In my view, the authorisation, as in the instant case, will not be enough for recording the names of bargadars by the Junior Land Reforms Officer or to effect such changes in the record-of-rights as published. For such purposes Section 51 of the Act, which is in the following terms--

51 (1) The State Government may, in any case, if it so thinks fit, make an order directing that record-of-rights in respect of any district or part of a district be revised or prepared by a Revenue Officer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.

(2) A notification in the Official Gazette of an older under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence that the order has been duly made.

(3) When an order is made under Sub-section (1) the Revenue Officer shall record in the record-of-rights to be revised or prepared in pursuance of such order, such particulars as may be prescribed.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, where any non-agricultural land is comprised in the holding of a raiyat or where any agricultural land is comprised in any non-agricultural tenancy, the Revenue officer shall

(a) divide the holding or tenancy, as the case may be, so as to constitute separate holdings or tenancies for the agricultural land and the non-agricultural land;

(b) apportion the existing revenue or rent, as the case may be, between the holdings and the tenancies so constituted on the basis of area; and

(c) record the non-agricultural tenant holding any agricultural land, whether under a superior tenant or not, as a raiyat holding directly under the State.

(5) There shall be a separate khatian for each raiyat and the khatian shall include all lands held by such raiyat in one mauza.

would be of relevant consideration. The following particulars under the said section is required to be recorded in a record of-rights:

(1) The name of each person who is a raiyat or occupant of land or who is a bargadar as described in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955;

(2) the situation, class and quantity of the land held by each raiyat, occupant or bargadar;

(3) the name of each raiyat''s or occupant''s landlord;

(4) the revenue and cesses payable at the time the record-of-rights is being revised or prepared;

(5) that rights and obligations of each raiyat in respect of (a) the use by him of water for agricultural purposes and (b) the repair and maintenance of appliances for securing a supply of water for the cultivation of the land held by him;

(6) the special conditions and incidents, if any of the tenancy;

(7) any right of way or other easement attaching to the land;

(8) if the land is claimed to be held revenue-free, the authority under which the claim is made.

In case of land held for purposes other than agriculture or horticulture the fact should be noted along with the other relevant particulars (vide Rule 23 in appen. A-II) and the same further empowers a Revenue Officer to record those particulars. The recording of the names of bargadars, which would mean revision or preparation of record-of-rights, can certainly be done or effected under the aforesaid Section 51 and under Sub-section (2) of the said section, a notification of an order under Sub-section (1) would be conclusive proof of the order having been made. But in the instant case, no such order in terms of Section 51(1) has been produced for the purpose of showing the authority of the Respondent Junior Land Reforms Officer for the purpose of revision or preparation of such record-of-rights in accordance with the provisions of chap. VII of the Act. In view of the above, it must be held that the action taken by the Respondent Junior Land Reforms Officer was not justified and in fact, the assumption of jurisdiction by him for having a change in the record-of-rights by recording the names of bargadars was patently unauthorised. So, the points as raised by Mr. Panda on the question of jurisdiction, power, competence and authority of the Junior Land Reforms Officer, in the instant case, should succeed. Since there has been total lack of jurisdiction in the instant case, which again goes to the root of the matter, so without going into the other technical points as raised by Mr. Acharya, I am making this rule absolute. There will, however, be no order for costs. Let appropriate writs be issued. The prayer for stay of operation of this order is refused.