S.R. Das Gupta, J.@mdashIn this application the petitioner is asking to an order for quashing certain orders passed by the Bhagchas Conciliation
Board, Jaynagar dated the 16t.h December, 1054. The matter arises in this way. The opposite parties Nos. 8 to 11 were the Bhagchasis of the
lands belonging to the petitioner. It is stated in the petition before me that the practice was for the Bhagchaisis to stack the produce of the land in
respect of which they were the Bhagchasis in the Khamar of the petitioner. On the 16th December. 1954. the Bhagchasis made an application to
the Bhagchas Conciliation Board. Joynagar, for settlement of their alleged dispute with the petitioner and obtained on the same date an interim
order from the said Board whereby it was ordered that pending the decision of the said dispute by the Board the produce of the land in question
would be kept in the custody of one Benoy Krishna Gharami, who was appointed the receiver by the Board. The said order was an ex parte order
made on the application of the opposite parties. The Board did not give any notice to the petitioner before making the said order. The petitioner
got notice from the said Board wherein it was stated that as dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the opposite parties the same has been
fixed for settlement on the 27th January, 1955, and in the said notice it was further stated that pending the decision of the case the produce of the
land was to be kept in the custody of one Benoy Krishna Gharami and he was appointed receiver for that purpose. The notice further stated that if
within seven days after receiving notice from the said custodian the petitioner do not take away his legitimate share then the receiver or the
opposite parties would have no responsibility in respect of the same. It is alleged that on receipt of that notice the petitioner became aware of the
fact that an application had been made before the Bhagchas Conciliation Board, Joynagar, and that an interim order was obtained from it. The
present petition has been made for quashing the order of the Board whereby the Board has ordered the produce to be kept in the custody of one
Benoy Krishna Gharami until the final decision of the case and appointed the said Gharami as receiver for that purpose and dispensed with the
responsibility of the receiver and of the opposite parties in respect of the plaintiff''s share of the said produce after the lapse of seven days from the
receipt of a notice from the said custodian.
2. In my opinion the Board has no jurisdiction to make such an order. Section 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, provides that every
dispute between a bargadar and the owner, whose land the bargadar cultivates, with regard to the matters mentioned in the said section, shall be
decided by a Board established for the local area within which such land is situated. The said section only empowers the Board to decide the
disputes between a Bargadar and the owner of the land. There is nothing in the said section or in the Act empowering the Board to make an
interim order of the nature as made in the present case. The rules framed under the said Act also do not give any such power to the Board. The
rules lay down the procedure to be followed by the Board when it receives an application. Rule 7 provides that on receipt of an application for
settlement of any matter under the Act, the Chairman of the Board shall fix a date and place for consider: of the application and intimate the same
to the other member of the Board. The said rule further provides that he shall cause a notice to be served on the Bargadar and owner concerned in
such manner as he may think fit to give them an opportunity of being heard on the date so fixed. The said rules framed under the West Bengal
Bargadars Act, 1950, only empower the Board to decide the disputes and lay down the procedure which has to be followed for that purpose.
Neither the provision of the Act nor the rules give any power to the Board to make an interim order of the nature as made in the present case. In
my opinion the interim order which was made by the Board in this cases was clearly without jurisdiction and. should be quashed.
3. I, therefore, make an order that the order passed by the Bhagchas Conciliation Board, Jaynagar, on the 16th December. 1954, giving direction
that pending the final decision of the dispute before the Board between the parties the custody of the produce of the land in question to remain in
the custody of the said Benoy Krishna Gharami and appointing the said Benoy Krishna Gharami as receiver for that purpose and exempting the
opposite parties and the receiver from liability in respect of the share of the produce of the petitioner is quashed and the Board is directed to
proceed according to law. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute and the petitioner is entitled to costs of this application from the opposite parties
Nos 2 to 11.
