Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jadav Das & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 July, 2021
09, 29.7.2021 WPLRT 43 of 2020
10, with
11,
12,
WPLRT 44 of 2020
13, with
14, WPLRT 45 of 2020
15, with
16 WPLRT 46 of 2020
Ct-16 with
WPLRT 47 of 2020
with
WPLRT 48 of 2020
with
ar WPLRT 49 of 2020
with
WPLRT 50 of 2020
Jadav Das & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh
Mr. K.C Sahoo
Mr. Kartik Das
... For the Petitioners
Mr. Santi Pada Pahari
...For the Private Respondents
Mr. Cahdni Charan De, Ld. AGP
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
... For the State in
WPLRT 43,44 & 49 of 2020
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Priyabrata Battabyal
... For the State in
WPLRT 45,47,48 & 50 of 2020
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya
Mr. Kartik Chandra Kapas
... For the State in
WPLRT 46 of 2020
By consent of the parties all the writ
petitions are heard analogously since those
involve common questions of fact and law and
the original applications out of which the writ
petitions arise were disposed of by a common
judgment and order dated October 21, 2020
passed by the Learned West Bengal Land
Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
The petitioners claiming to be the land
owners have filed the writ petitions
challenging the order dated October 21, 2020
passed in eight original applications whereby
the orders passed by the Bhag Chas Officer in
B.C. Case nos. 66, 61,34,36,37,59,62,35/E-
1/09 were upheld thereby confirming the
orders accepting the barga right of the original
applicants.
One Ranjan Kanta Das was the original
raiyat of the plots in question. Upon his death
his brother Dibakar Das i.e. the predecessor-
in-interest of the writ petitioners became the
sole owner of the suit property by virtue of
inheritance. Dibakar Das filed a Title Suit
being no. 18 of 2003 before the learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Contai
for declaration of his right, title and interest
over the suit property and for permanent
injunction. The Learned Judge of the Civil
Court below by a judgment and decree dated
August 25, 2009 declared the right, title and
interest of Dibakar Das in respect of the plots
in question and defendants of the said suit
property were permanently restrained from
disturbing the peaceful possession of Dibakar
Das in respect of the plots in question.
The original applicants claiming to be the
bargadars in respect of the plots in question
applied before the Bhag Chas Officer under
Section 21D read with Section 21B of the
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for
recording their names in the record of rights.
Bhag Chas Officer initiated Bhag Chas
cases on the basis of the petitions filed by the
original applicants.
The Revenue Officer passed orders dated
November 19, 2010 in Bhag Chas Case
directing that the name of the original
applicants are to be recorded as bargadars in
respect of the plots in question.
Being aggrieved against the said order,
the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners
preferred separate appeals before the
appellate authority. The appellate authority by
an order dated December 12, 2011 remanded
the matter to the Block Land & Land Reforms
Officer, Egra-I with direction to rehear the
case after maintaining all formalities including
field enquiry and upon giving an opportunity
of hearing to all the interested persons
concerned. Thereafter, the appellate authority
proceeded to hear the said appeals afresh and
by an order dated March 26, 2011 disposed of
the appeals by setting aside the orders passed
by the Revenue Officer in the aforesaid Bhag
Chas cases.
Aggrieved by the said order dated March
26, 2011 passed by the appellate authority,
the original applicants approached the
Learned West Bengal Land Reforms and
Tenancy Tribunal. The orders passed by the
appellate authority on March 26, 2012 and
December 12, 2012 were set aside by the
Learned Tribunal by the impugned order. The
learned Tribunal also upheld the orders
passed by the Bhag Chas Officer in the
aforesaid Bhag Chas cases.
Mr. Ghosh, the Learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that the Learned Tribunal
erred in law by setting aside the order dated
March 26, 2012 passed by the appellate
authority when the parties participated in the
hearing of the appeal without raising any
objection. He further submits that the
Revenue Officer directed the names of the
original applicants to be recorded as bargadar
in spite of the fact that they did not produce
any document to show delivery of produce to
the owner. Thus, according to Mr. Ghosh, the
orders passed by the Bhag Chas Officer
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Mr. Santi Pada Pahari, learned advocate
appearing for the original applicants/private
respondents herein contended that the
learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in
upholding the orders of the Bhag chas Officer
by which the names of the original applicants
were directed to be recorded in the record of
rights as the said order was passed upon
considering the report of the field enquiry and
other available materials, which were before
the Bhag Chas Officer.
We have heard the learned counsels
appearing for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
It appears from the order dated
December 12, 2011 that the appellate
authority was not satisfied with the service of
notice upon Dibakar Das in the Bhag Chas
proceedings. Accordingly, the appellate
authority remanded the matter to the Revenue
Officer directing him to rehear the matter
afresh upon giving an opportunity of hearing
to the interested persons concerned. The said
order dated December 12, 2011 had attained
finality as none of the parties to the
proceeding had challenged the said order
before the Learned Tribunal.
Curiously enough, the appellate
authority after disposing of the appeal by
passing an order of remand on December 12,
2011 took up the hearing of the appeals
afresh suo moto and disposed of the said
appeals by orders dated March 26, 2012
thereby setting aside the orders passed by the
Bhag Chas Officer.
An authority after passing an order
cannot sit in appeal over its own order and
nullify the said order. It cannot also review its
own order suo moto. Thus, the appellate
authority acted wholly without jurisdiction by
setting aside its own order dated December
12, 2011.
Even otherwise the appellate authority
after passing the order dated December 12,
2011 could not have proceeded to hear the
said appeals afresh as it became functus
officio after passing the order dated December
12, 2011. Since the entire proceeding before
the appellate authority subsequent to the
passing of the order dated December 12, 2011
was wholly without jurisdiction, mere
participation of the parties cannot validate
such proceeding. The learned Tribunal, in our
considered view, was justified in setting aside
the order passed by the appellate authority
dated March 26, 2012 for the reasons as
stated hereinbefore. However, the Tribunal
erred in law by setting aside the earlier order
of remand passed by the appellate authority
on December 12, 2011 which had attained
finality as none of the parties to this
proceeding challenged the said order before
the Learned Tribunal. Furthermore, Dibakar
Das being a raiyat was an interested person
insofar as recording the names of the original
applicants as bargadars is concerned and as
such an opportunity of hearing is now to be
afforded to the heirs of the said Dibakar Das
i.e. the writ petitioners in the Bhag Chas
cases since Dibakar Das had died in the
meantime.
For the reasons as aforesaid, the portion
of the impugned order setting aside the orders
of the appellate authority dated March 26,
2012 is affirmed. However, the other portions
of the impugned order whereby the orders of
the appellate authority dated December 12,
2011 were set aside and consequently the
orders passed by the Bhag Chas Officer in
Bhag Chas cases were affirmed are
accordingly set aside.
The orders passed by the appellate
authority on December 12, 2011 is thus
restored. The concerned Revenue Officer is
directed to comply with the directions
contained in this order as well as the order
dated December 12, 2011 and dispose of the
B.C. Case nos. 66, 61, 34, 36, 37, 59, 62,
35/E-1/09 as expeditiously as possible,
preferably on or before 31st December, 2021.
In view of the above all the writ petitions
are disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon
compliance of all undertakings.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
