Pratap Kumar Ray, J.@mdashHeard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. Challenge has been made in this writ application assailing the order dated 21st June, 2002 passed in O.A. No.3306 of 2001 (LRTT) by the
learned Tribunal below, on the question of jurisdiction of said Tribunal to adjudicate any application wherein the decree of the Civil Court is under
challenge. It appears from the impugned order that a pre-emption application was filed u/s 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and
therefrom a Misc. Appeal laid by the aggrieved party and assailing the order passed in the preemption appeal, the original application was moved.
The question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider the grievance of any party assailing the order passed in pre-emption appeal, is not res
Integra. Regarding jurisdiction of learned Tribunal below to adjudicate any application assailing the order passed u/s 9 said Act by learned District
Judge in pre-emption appeal, one of us Pratap Kumar Ray, J. in the case of Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Hussain reported in 2002 WBLR
(Cal) 654 which was heard along with other Civil Revision matters filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India expressed the view that
remedy of aggrieved party against the order of pre-emption appeal was to assail the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Judge. In the judgment Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Husain (supra) the
Court discussed the meaning of the word ''authority'' and held that the Court of ld. District Judge, cannot be an authority under W.B. Land
Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and District Judge under was not a persona designata, but a Court, within the frame work of the Bengal, Agra and
Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. As there was a conflict in the opinion with another Hon''ble Judge of this Court, who decided the case Kashinath
Mondal & Ors. vs. Bani Ballau Biswas & Ors. reported in 2001 (2) CLJ 319, holding, inter alia, that the revisional application u/s 115 of the CPC
was not maintainable against the order passed by the ld. District Judge in an appeal, u/s 9 of the said Act of 1955, one of us Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
referred the matter to the larger Bench for decision by discussing in details the legal situation in the said case Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf
Hussain (supra). The Division Bench comprising of A.K. Mathur, CJ., as His Lordship then was and Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. heard the matter
which is reported under cause title Pashupati Adhikary vs. Pradyut Kumar reported 2003(4) CHN 347 only with other matters and held that view
taken in the case Sk. Samsul Huda vs. Mosharaf Hussain (supra) was right view.
3. The said Division Bench answered the issue in paragraph 27 of the report which reads such:
After having considered rival submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned District Judge or Additional
District Judge u/s 9(6) of the Act of 1955 will be amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court u/s 115 of the Constitution (sic) CPC) and the
exclusion clause in the Act of 1997 will not be applicable so far as orders passed by the Judicial Authority are concerned. However, this will not
prevent the State Government from withdrawing the power conferred on the ''Munsif and the ''District Judge'' to decide the pre-emption matter
and restore it back to the revenue officers that will automatically attract section 8 of the Act of 1997.
4. Having regard to the said legal position, we are of the view that learned Tribunal below had no jurisdiction to entertain the original application
assailing the order of ld. District Judge passed in an appeal u/s 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Hence the impugned order before
us is set aside and quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal.
5. This application accordingly stands allowed by quashing the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
6. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
Md. Abdul Ghani, J.
7. I agree.