Prabir Kumar Pattanayak vs State of West Bengal

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.—The short point in this Rule is whether a decision of the Bhagchas Officer given in a reference made by a criminal Court u/s 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is subject to an appeal u/s 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In the present case, the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Sadar (South), Midnapore, in a pending proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made a reference to the Bhagchas Officer, Danton, u/s 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for a decision as to whether the opposite parties to the said proceeding were actually bargadars or not. The Bhagchas Officer concerned, by his order dated November 21, 1975, decided that the opposite parties in the said case were actually bargadars of the land in question. Prabir Kumar Pattanayak, the Petitioner in the present Rule, being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal u/s 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Deputy Collector, Midnapore, dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the case did not come up under provisions of s, 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act but under orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (South), Midnapore, in consequence of a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before him.

I have considered the question raised in the present Rule in my judgment in Chapala Bala Adhikari v. Monoranjan Das and Ors. 1975 (1) C.L.J. 447. I have pointed out in para. 12 of my judgment in Chapala Bala Adhikari v. Monoranjan Das and Ors. that before the insertion of the word ''otherwise'' in Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,. 1974, the junction of the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 to decide the question whether or not a person was bargadar was conditional or dependent upon existence of a dispute referred to in Sub-section (1). The authority or officer in deciding such a dispute under Sub-section (1) could incidentally determine under Sub-section (2) the question whether a person was a bargadar or not. The word ''otherwise'' has been inserted in Section 19 to confer jurisdiction upon the said officers or authorities to decide the question whether a person was a bargadas or not or to whom the share of produce is deliverable even in the absence of any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1). After the said amendment of Sub-section (2) even if such a question arises in any other different way the officers or authorities under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 can assume jurisdiction under Sub-section (2) and determine the question. I have, further, observed in Chapala Bala''s case (Supra) that Section 18(2) was complementary to Section 21(3) of the Act. In para. 17 of my judgment in the above case I have observed:

Sub-section (3) of Section 21 provides for a reference of the question whether a person is a bargadar or not to the Officer or Authority mentioned in Section 18(1), but neither the West Bengal Land Reforms Act nor the Rules prescribed under the Act lay down the detailed procedure for determination of the said question. Section 20(1) lays down that the procedure to be followed in deciding disputes or appeals under Chapter III and be prescribed. Nothing was placed before me to establish that until now Rules have been prescribed for disposal of the question referred under Sub-section (3) of Section 21. The Rule 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Bargadar Rules, 1965, which prescribes the manner of making an application for decision in respect of the matters is not appropriate in the context of Section 21. The Officers or Authorities in determining the question referred to them u/s 21(3) undoubtedly exercise quasi-judicial powers. Therefore, they are bound to act in consequence with the fundamental principles of justice. The Authorities are required to give opportunity of hearing to both parties, record evidence if adduced by the parties and to decide the question fairly, impartially and objectively, i.e. in the manner respect of the matters is not appropriate in the context of Section 19 provides for appeal against any order made under Sec-section 17 or Section 18 except where an order Is made with the consent of the parties to the dispute. The Officer or Authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 in determining a question referred under Sub-section (3) of Section 21 exercises power u/s 18. Therefore, a determination of the question u/s 21(2) read with Section 18(2) would be apple-able. The West Bengal Land Reforms Act has not also laid down the procedure to be adopted by the Civil or Criminal Courts after the Authorities or Officers under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 determine the question referred to them u/s 21(3). But under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 order or other proceeding whatsoever made under Chapter III can be questioned in any Civil Court and no Civil Court can entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioned in Sections 17 and 18. Accordingly, Section 21(3) cannot be questionable before the Court which had referred the question. After the receipt of the finding on the question whether a person is a bargadar or not, the Court will proceed to determine the remaining issue.

I find no reason to revise my above views with regard to the scope and effect of an order u/s 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In my view, a decision upon a reference u/s 21(3) must be considered as a determination u/s 18(2) of the Act. Section 19 makes any order Section 18 appealable. The expression ''any order'', in the present context, means every order passed either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 18. Therefore, an appeal against a determination made u/s 18(2) would be maintainable.

Mr. Kundu himself drew my attention to the statement of objects and reasons of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974. Clause (e) of the same stated that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was proposed to be amended to inter alia provide for exclusive jurisdiction.

This throws light upon the intention of the Legislature in enacting West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974. We may also take into consideration the state of law before the said Amendment Act of 1974 was passed for ascertaining the intention of the Legislature. The unamended Section 18(2) conferred jurisdiction upon the officers and authorities u/s 18 of the Act to only incidentally determine the question whether or not a person was a bargadar. The West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974, was passed to exclude the jurisdiction of civil and criminal Courts to determine the said question of status and as a necessary corollary the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the said question was conferred upon the officers and authorities mentioned in Section 18. These circumstances clearly support the view that a decision in a reference u/s 21(3) should be treated as a determination u/s 18(2) of the Act. Further, a proceeding u/s 21(3) read with Section 18(2) of the Act is quasi-judicial one for determination of the status of the parties concerned and affecting right to property. Section 21(1) bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to question orders or proceedings under chap. Ill of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and the civil Court cannot entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioned in Sections 17 and 18. Therefore, it would be logical to interpret that the intention of the Legislature was to provide an appeal u/s 19 against a determination u/s 18(2) read with Section 21(3).

This fortifies my views that a decision in a reference u/s 21(3) should be treated as a determination u/s 18(2) of the Act. In the above view, the appellate authority clearly committed an error of jurisdiction by refusing to entertain the appeal of the present Petitioner. I make it clear that at this stage I do not propose to decide whether there is any merit in the appeal of the Petitioner or not and whether the decision of the Bhagchas Officer is correct. I, accordingly, make this Rule absolute in part.

Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the order of the Deputy Collector, Midnapore, dated January 9, 1976, in the Bhagchas Appeal Case No. 10 S of 1974-75.

Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law.

There will be no order as to costs.

The said appeal be disposed of as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.

No order is necessary in the application. The application is disposed of without any order as to costs.