Md. Abdul Ghani, J.@mdashThe instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. 141 dated 17.12.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contain, in Title Suit No. 72 of 2007. It would be evident from the materials on record that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contain, upon hearing the Learned Counsel for both sides over the petitioner''s application u/s 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was pleased to reject the same on a finding that the petitioner/defendant failed to produce any evidence in support of prima facie proof that he was ever inducted as ''bargadar'' under Opposite Party/Plaintiff in respect of the suit land.
2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned dated 17.12.2007, the petitioner has come up before this Court praying for setting aside the said order.
3. Point for consideration is whether the order dated 17.12.2007, passed by the learned Court below is sustainable under the law or whether the same needs any interference by this Court.
4. Mr. Samiran Giri, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making submission drew this Court''s attention to the contents of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 as well as some other important materials on record and strongly contended that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and improprieties inasmuch as learned Court below ignoring the mandatory provisions of law as envisaged in Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 rejected the application u/s 21(3) of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 filed by his client in the Court below and thus caused miscarriage of justice to his client. In support of his contention, he referred to the provisions laid down in Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as also some relevant portions of the petitioner''s written statement filed in the Court below and emphatically urged that the matter relating to dispute as to whether the petitioner is a ''bargadar'' or not in respect of the suit property having been well reflected in the body of the written statement, the learned Court below ought to have referred the matter to the concerned Officer as embodied in Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,1955. Mr. Giri also argued that it is a fit case wherein the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
5. Further, Mr. Giri, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the decision reported in 2001(1) CLJ 431
6. On the other hand, Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party referring to some materials placed before this Court strongly argued and submitted that the learned Court below by passing the impugned order committed no mistake or illegality as because the petitioner''s father under due process of law was evicted from the suit property as bargadar under the Opposite Party and that the present petitioner has subsequently never been inducted as ''bargadar'' in respect of the suit land. Mr. Mukherjee further urged that although the petitioner happens to be ''bargadar'' under the Opposite Party in respect of some non-suit property, but in no circumstances he can be termed as ''bargadar'' in respect of the suit property. In fine, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party contended that in view of the position of law, the application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties concerned and also after going through the materials on record, it could be detected that petitioner''s father was previously inducted as ''bargadar'' in respect of suit property and subsequently he was evicted therefrom under due process of law. Further from the materials on record it could be gathered that the petitioner happens to be the ''bargadar'' under the plaintiff/Opposite Party in respect of some non-suit property. True, it is that the petitioner as defendant of the Title Suit No. 72 of 2007, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),1st Additional Court, Contain, has categorically asserted in the written statement that he is the bargadar under Opposite Party/Plaintiff in respect of suit property.
8. Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 reads as follows:
if any question as to whether a person is or is not a bargadar arises in the course of any (suit, case, appeal or other) proceedings before any Civil or Criminal Court, the Court shall refer it to the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 (for decision and such Court shall dispose of the suit, case, appeal or other proceedings in accordance with the decision communicated to it by the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 to whom the question was referred).
9. From the contents of the written statement submitted on behalf of the present petitioner in the Court below as also from the facts and circumstances including the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it would be explicit that the question as to whether the petitioner is or is not a bargadar in respect of the suit property under the Opposite Party is palpably arising in the body of the written statement.
10. Since the dispute as to whether the present petitioner is a bargadar or not in respect of the suit property under the present Opposite Party is explicit from the written statement submitted in the Court below. I am of clear considered opinion that the learned Court committed error by not referring the matter to the officer or authority mentioned in Sub-Section 1(1) of Section 18 for decision.
11. Therefore, having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also regard being had to the principles of the rulings relied upon on behalf of the petitioner as also the provision of law laid down in Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, I am persuaded to understand and believe that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order committed wrong and illegality and as such the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye and estimation of law. In the existing circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Additional Court, Contain, in Title Suit No. 72 of 2007 being untenable under the law is set aside.
12. Consequently, the petition u/s 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court below hereby stands allowed. Learned Court below is hereby directed to refer the dispute to the authority concerned as envisaged in Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for reference and decision granting an opportunity to the said authority for giving decision in the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of the communication of the Order by the Court below. The application Under Article 227 of the Constitution thus stands disposed of.
13. I, however, make no order as to costs.
14. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
