Renupada Mukherjee, J.@mdashA short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of some sections of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956), has arisen in this Rule. In order to understand what that question of law is it is necessary to state only the following facts.
2. Opposite party Srimati Mukta Bala Dassi instituted a proceeding before the Mongolkote Bliag Chas Board against the three Petitioners of this Rule for recovery of some bhag crops or in the alternative for recovery of their equivalent price from them. The application of the opposite party was opposed by the Petitioners who denied having cultivated the land in question in bhag under the opposite party during the years alleged by the latter. The Board however made an award in favour of the opposite party directing the present Petitioners to deliver either 16 maunds of paddy and 2 kahans of straw to the opposite party or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 136 being the equivalent money value of the produce. Feeling aggrieved by this award of the Board the Petitioners made an application to the Chairman of the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board concerned on November 12, 1955, for reviewing the said order and setting aside the award and for retrial of the case after taking necessary evidence from both parties. The said application for review was pending in the Bhag Chas Board when the West Bengal Land Reforms Act came into operation and the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act II of 1950), was repealed. The result was that the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board ceased to exist when the application for review remained pending.
3. On the cessation of the Bhag Chas Board the review application came up before one Sri K.M. Karmakar, Bhag Chas Officer, for dealing with all disputes between an owner and his bargadar falling u/s 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Bhag Chas Conciliation Officer has refused to dispose of that application on the merits holding that he is not competent to review the award or order passed by the Board. The present Rule was obtained by the bargadars-Petitioners against the above order passed by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Officer concerned.
4. Mr. Dastidar appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contended that Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act makes a specific provision that all proceedings pending before any Bhag Chas Conciliation Board established under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, shall stand transferred to the officer or authority having jurisdiction over the area in which the land to which the proceedings relate is situate. Mr. Dastidar submitted that under this provision contained in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act the review proceeding automatically stood transferred to the officer concerned and so he was competent to hear the application for review and his refusal to exercise his jurisdiction to hear the review application is illegal. It cannot be doubted for a moment that an application for review made before a Bhag �has Board constituted under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, is a proceeding. Section 10A of the Act specifically-empowered the Board to entertain applications for review made under certain circumstances:
10A. A Board or an Appellate Officer may, on application by any person aggrieved, made within one month of the date of any award or order, review such award or order:
Provided that no application for review shall lie from any award or order from which an appeal has been preferred
5. I, therefore, hold that the review application in question was a proceeding and after the repeal of West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950 and inauguration of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act of 1956 the review application automatically stood transferred to the officer concerned.
6. Mr. Goswami, appearing on behalf of the owner-opposite party, contended that even if it be conceded that the previous review application stood transferred to the officer appointed under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act that will not help the present Petitioners, because that officer has not been empowered by the last-mentioned Act to hear an application for review. Mr. Goswami submitted that such an officer has been specially empowered by the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, to hear only certain kinds of disputes'' arising between an owner and a bargadar and those disputes have been enumerated in Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Section 18 of the Act runs as follows:
18. (1) Every dispute between a bargadar and the person whose land he cultivates in respect of any of the following matters, namely,
(a) division or delivery of the produce,
(b) termination of cultivation by the bargadar,
(c) place of storing or threshing the produce,
shall be decided by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint.
(2) If in deciding any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1) any question arises as to whether a person is a bargadar or not and to whom the share of the produce is deliverable, such question shall be determined by the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1).
7. After drawing my attention to Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, Mr. Goswami contended that this section does not mention about an application for review and therefore the officer appointed under this section is not empowered to deal with or dispose of an application for review filed before a Board under the provisions of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. In my opinion, this argument of Mr. Goswami seems to take too narrow and technical, a view of Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act of 1956. If we analyse the present dispute between the parties which has culminated in this Rule we shall find that the opposite party in this Rule is claiming some crops or their value from the Petitioners on the allegation that they are her bargadars. Her claim is being resisted by the Petitioners who are denying the relationship of owner and bargadar on the allegation that they did not cultivate the lands. This dispute culminated in an award before the Board. The Petitioners are attempting by making the application for review, to reopen that award and to get the whole dispute decided by the Board once again. Under these circumstances, I must hold that the application for review filed by the Petitioners before the Board relates to a dispute between the alleged bargadars and the owner about delivery of the produce. It is within the competence of the officer concerned to decide this dispute. The latter improperly refused to exercise his jurisdiction by holding that he is not competent to hear the review application on merits.
8. In view of my findings given above I am of opinion that the Rule must be made absolute. It is accordingly made absolute and the order complained of is hereby set aside and the Bhag Chas Conciliation Officer is hereby directed to hear the review application on merits in the light of the observations made above.
9. Considering the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties will bear their own costs in this Rule.
10. Let the records be sent down as early as possible to the officer concerned.
