Radha Kinkar Mukherjee vs Beni Kora

Chatterjee, J.—This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order purported to have been passed u/s 19 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The opposite party applied under the Land Reforms Act for direction upon the owner to deliver his share of paddy and straw or price in lieu thereof. The case of the Petitioner before the Bhagchas Officer was that he came to an arrangement with the Petitioner, Mukherjee, for cultivating his land under the system known as Krishan Bhag. The word Krishan means labourer and the word bhag means share. The system referred to is a system by which, labourer shares the produce. The opposite party before the Bhagchas Officer, i.e, Mukherjee objected, to the jurisdiction of the Bhagchas Officer under the Land Reforms Act. The main question which has been urged before me is whether the Bhagchas Officer had any jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Land Reforms Act. The Bhagchas Officer decided "I hold that the Plaintiff was Defendant''s Krishan in 1364 B.S.'''' Then he allowed the relief. The Appellate Officer has considered the matter and has held that the definition of Bargadar in the Land Reforms Act is not exhaustive but is illustrative.

I have to consider only this aspect of the matter, viz., whether the Bhagchas Officer had any jurisdiction or, in other words, whether this is a dispute which comes within the meaning of the Land Reforms Act. The definition of the word Bargadar u/s 2(2). of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is as follows:

Bargadar means a person who under the system generally known as adhibarga or bhag cultivate the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person.

The ordinary rights of the contracting parties are restricted by the Land Reforms Act. Ordinarily the contract between the owner and the Bargadar is for one year and the contract terminates on the expiry of the agricultural year but the Land Reforms Act provides that in spite of such a contract, the owner will! not be entitled to terminate the contract, except in accordance: with the Act. The legislature made a substantial alteration in the legal position of each. The principle of interpretation in such circumstances is that "Legislative does not intend to makes "substantial alteration in the law beyond what it explicitly "declares either in express words or by clear implication". The case of M.K. Ranganathan and Another Vs. Government of Madras and Others, may be referred to in this connection. Further the legislature refers to the three systems known as Adhi, Barga and Bhag and does not refer to Krishan system. I cannot again hold Krisham system was intended to be included; because the supposed spirit (of law) cannot be given effect to in opposition to the plain language. The case of Rananjaya Singh Vs. Baijnath Singh and Others, , may be referred to in this connection. The language used by the legislature in an enactment is the true depository of the legislative intent. The case of Darshan Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, , may be cited as an authority in this connection. That language includes Adhi, Barga and Bhag and not Krishan.

Finally, the definition begins with the words "Bargadar "means" and does not say "Bargadar includes''''. Therefore, it is very difficult for anyone to say that the definition was an illustrative one. Ordinarily a definition defines and an illustration illustrates. Therefore, unless any definition is clear enough to show that it not merely defines but illustrates and includes others of the same type it is difficult to say that the definition is illustrative.

A Bargadar means a person who cultivates the land of the owner or, in other words, the land is cultivated by a Bargadar. So far as the matter of cultivation, the owner has nothing to do with cultivation. The owner remains the owner and because, he is the owner, he gets a share. The Bargadar has to cultivate, i.e., to bear all expenses of cultivation. That means the Bargadar has to arrange for the cattle, he has also to arrange for the plough, he has to arrange for the manure, he has to arrange for the seed and he has also to arrange for irrigation. Ordinarily therefore, the entire cost of all these items has to be borne by the cultivator or the Bargadar and it is then only that it comes within the scope of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Besides that, a Bargadar cultivates as he chooses and Krishan (labourer) cultivates as the owner directs.

Coming now to the system known as Krishan, Bhag in the more western part of West Bengal, we have to see whether this system is the same as the barga or adhi system. The system known as adhi or barga means a system of cultivation by a cultivator; whereas the system known as Krishan Bhag means sharing profits with a labourer, in other words, the labourer is not paid his salary monthly according to some fixed rate; but he shares the produce in lieu of his remuneration. The result therefore is, that, if a person cultivates the land not as cultivator hut as a labourer of the owner, he does not come within the purview of the Land Reforms Act. Here the Petitioner before the Bhagchas Officer admitted that the cattle belonged to the owner, the plough belonged to owner, the cost of the manure was borne by the owner and the cost of seed was also borne by the owner or, in other words, his Junction was the same as that of a labourer and fully he says that he cultivated as the owner directed. These conditions are not the same as that of a cultivator, who cultivates at his own cost and in a manner he chooses. It is undoubtedly true that he carried on all the functions that are necessary for a cultivator to do, viz., he has reaped the paddy, he has sown them, but he did all these things on the account of and at the direction of the owner; the owner supplied him with cattle, plough, manure, seed and gave orders for cultivation. What he gave was merely labour.

A servant acts on the direction of the master and a contractor in the manner he chooses. A Krishan is thus a servant and a Bargadar an independent contractor.

If I am to classify I would say that Chap. II of the Land Reforms Act relates to contracts between the owner and the cultivator; whereas the Krishan system, relates to agricultural labour rather than to agricultural contracts. I should say fundamentally they belong to different spheres of legislation- one belongs to contracts and the other to labour. The object and reasons of the Act is to regulate the conditions of agricultural tenants mainly. One chapter relates to contracts relating to agriculture. It may be said that the chapter relates to contract and licenses in favour of agricultural cultivators. Hence, the object may be to regulate agricultural leases and licences. We may refer to the preamble, to objects and to reasons of the enactment to understand the scope of enactment. The case of A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar Vs. M. Venkitachalam Potti and Another, should be referred to in this connection. But even then regulation of agricultural labour does not come even within leases and licenses of agricultural land. To construe the Act to include the condition of agricultural labour would be to extend the scope of the legislation to an extent not contemplated by the legislature itself.

I, therefore, hold that the Petitioner before the Bhagchas Officer could not move under the Land Reforms Act. Neither the Bhagchas Officer nor the appellate authority had any jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.

I have my sympathy with the opposite party, who, I understand, was not paid even on the basis, of remuneration; but for that he must go to some other forum than the forum under the Land Reforms Act.

The result is that the Rule must be made absolute. The order of the authority below must be set aside and the petition may be returned to the Petitioner to be presented to the proper authority.

In the circumstances of this case, I direct each party to bear his costs throughout.