Sheik Based vs Sridhar Chandra Bera

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This Rule arises out of a proceeding really u/s 12A(1) of the "West Bengal Bargadars (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954. The application, which was originally filed by the alleged bargadar, who is the Petitioner before me, purported to be one under Sub-section (2) of Section 12A. It was in the nature of a complaint, more or less, in the terms of that Sub-section The complainant was examined by the learned Subdivisional Officer and some evidence was taken. The matter was then sent to the President of the local Union Board for enquiry. Thereafter it appears, the Petitioner psayed to the Subdivisional Officer to take action under Sub-section (1) of Section 12A and asked for leave to treat his original application u/s 12A(2) as one under Sub-section (1). The proceedings under Sub-section (1) were thus started. Notice was given to the opposite party (owner) and eventually, the learned Subdivisional Officer allowed the Petitioner''s application. This was on October 23, 1954. In the meantime, on September 23, 1954, the West Bengal Bargadars Amendment Act, 1954. had come into force and in Section 12A(2)(i) of this amending Act, a provision was made for revision of the Subdivisional Officer''s order by the learned District Judge. The opposite party, against whom the learned Subdivisional Officer had passed his order in the present case on October 23, 1954, applied under this new provision to the learned District Judge for revision of the said order and that revision application eventually succeeded. From this order of the learned District Judge, allowing the opposite party''s revision application, the present Rule was obtained by the Petitioner.

The first point that has been urged in support of this Rule is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction in this case to interfere with the order of the learned Subdivisional Officer. It is contended that Section 12A(2)(i) of the new Act (West Bengal Bargadars Amendment Act, 1954) can have no application to the present proceedings which were instituted long before the enactment of the said amending Act and, at the time of initiation whereof, there was no provision for any revision to the learned District Judge from the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer. There seems to be no answer to this argument. It is well established that right of appeal and right of revision are substantive rights. Statutes, conferring them, can have no retrospective operation and cannot affect pending proceedings in the absence of provisions, express or implied, to the contrary. In the amending Act of 1954, there is no such contrary provision. The power of revision, conferred upon the District Judge by this amending Act, would therefore, be available only in cases which are instituted after the coming into operation of this Act. That power cannot be invoked or exercised in relation to cases which had been instituted prior to the said amending Act.

I would, accordingly, accept the Petitioner''s argument and set aside the order of the learned District Judge upon the view that the revision application before him was not maintainable in low and he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. That, however, is not the end of the matter. As the case is before me under Article 227 of the Constitution, I deem it my duty to consider the propriety of the learned Subdivisional Officer''s order.

The order, on the face of it, does not seem to be either just or proper or in accordance with law. It appears from the records that four witnesses were examined by either side. It appears also that documents may be available which might throw some light on the real point in dispute between the parties. In the above context, the summary order of the learned Subdivisional Officer does not at all seem to be a proper or satisfactory order.

In the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the said order as a just and proper order which ought to be upheld. I am not also quite sure whether the opposite party had proper opportunity to file objections to the Petitioner''s prayer u/s 12A(1) of the Bargadars (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954, and to adduce full evidence in support of the same.

I would, accordingly, set aside the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer and direct him to re-hear the Petitioner''s application which has now taken the shape of an application u/s 12A(1) of the West Bengal Bargadars (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954. in accordance with law on proper materials, after giving both parties proper opportunities to place them before the court.

The Rule is made absolute as above. The order of the learned District Judge as also that of the learned Sub-divisional Officer are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Subdivisional Officer to be re-considered in accordance with law in the light of the observations I have made above.

There will be no order for costs in this Rule.