Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sademan Sk vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 April, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
23.4.2014
ac
RVW 205 of 2011
in
W.P.L.R.T. 818 of 2002
Sademan Sk.
-versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee,
Mr. Md. Ashraful Huq.
... For the Applicant.
Mr. Asish Chandra Bagchi,
Ms. Madhumita Patra.
... For the Respondent
Nos. 4 to 9.
Mr. Lalit Mohon Mahata, Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata.
... For the State.
The legality and/or propriety of the order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on 16th May, 2002 in T.A. No. 769 of 2000 (LRTT) is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the bargadar.
Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of termination of barga cultivation by the petitioner herein, passed by the Bhag Chas Officer which was affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority in the facts of the instant case.
Admittedly, the writ petitioner was a bargadar in respect of various plots of lands at Mouja - Kutubpur under the private respondent nos. 4 to 9. Those private respondents filed an application before the Bhag Chas Officer for termination of cultivation of their lands by the writ petitioner on two-fold grounds, viz. (i) for not cultivating the land of the private respondents by the bargadar personally, and (ii) the land owners, viz. those private respondents, require the said land bonafide for bringing it under their personal cultivation.
2After holding a spot enquiry in the field and also after taking note of the report submitted by the Prodhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat and also after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and/or their witnesses, the Bhag Chas Officer came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner, namely, the bargadar, was not cultivating the said land either personally or with the help of his family members. In coming to such conclusion, the Bhag Chas Officer also relied upon the admission made by one of the witnesses of the bargadar, namely, Sri Babar Ali, DW-4, who stated in his evidence that he cultivated the said land along with others as hired labourers from the inception period. Holding as such, the private respondents' application for termination of cultivation of their lands by the said bargadar was allowed by the Bhag Chas Officer with a rider that the land owners, namely, the private respondents were allowed to bring the aforesaid lands under their personal cultivation in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act with effect from the date of the order.
The legality of the said order of the Bhag Chas Officer was challenged by the bargadar in appeal, but he ultimately failed to succeed in the said appeal. The said appeal being Bhag Chas Appeal No. 6 of 1991-92 was ultimately dismissed by the appellate authority on 11th July, 1991. However, the order which was passed by the Bhag Chas Officer was modified to the extent that the condition which was imposed upon the land owners for bringing the said land under their personal cultivation as per Section 17(1)(d) of the said Act will be ignored. The said order of the appellate authority was challenged by the said bargadar before the Learned Tribunal. The said tribunal application which was registered as T.A. 769 of 2000 (LRTT) was also dismissed on contest by affirming the judgment and order passed by the Bhag Chas Officer which was affirmed in appeal.
3The Learned Tribunal held that the order of the Bhag Chas Officer which was affirmed in appeal was justifiable as the bargadar instead of cultivating the said land personally or with the members of his family, acted as a middle man between the owner of the said land and the actual tillers. The Learned Tribunal, thus, held that the bargadar in fact, sublet his right of cultivation as bargadar which was against the spirit of the scheme of Chapter -III of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
The legality and propriety of the said order of the Tribunal is under challenge.
Heard the Learned Advocates of the parties and considered the materials on record.
Let us now consider the merit of this writ petition in the facts of the instant case. Section 2 sub-section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 defines bargadar in the following manner:
Section 2 sub-section 2 - "Bargadar" means a person who under the system generally known as adhi, barga or bhag cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that person and includes a person who under the system generally known as kisani (or by any other description) cultivates the land of another person on condition of receiving a share of the produce of such land from that person."
If the definition of bargadar as defined in Section 2 sub-section 2 is considered, then no doubt it is true that cultivation of the land by the bargadar himself or by the members of the family is not contemplated in the said definition clause. However, the requirement of cultivation of the land by the bargadar himself and/or by the members of his family can 4 be found under Section 17 of the said Act which deals with the provisions relating to termination of cultivation of the land of the land owners by bargadar. Section 17(1)(b) provides that cultivation of the land by a bargadar may be terminated, if, the land is not cultivated by the bargadar personally. The second explanation added to section 17(1) is also relevant for the present purpose. As such, the second explanation to Section 17(1) of the said Act is also set out hereunder:
Explanation - For purposes of clause (b), a bargadar who cultivates the land with the help of members of his family shall be deemed to cultivate it personally.
Thus, if this explanation is considered, then it goes without saying that even if the land is cultivated by the members of the family of the bargadar, then such cultivation will amount to cultivation by the bargadar personally. Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid provision of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; we have no hesitation to hold that if the bargadar fails to cultivate the land either personally or by the members of his family, cultivation of such land by such bargadar may be terminated under Section 17(1)(b) of the said Act.
Here is the case where the Bhag Chas Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that the writ petitioner failed to bring the land of the private respondents under his personal cultivation. The admission made by one of the witnesses of the said bargadar, viz. the DW-4 cannot be lost sight of, as he admitted in his evidence that he alongwith the other hired labourers used to cultivate the land of the private respondents right from the very inception. There is no evidence on record that the writ petitioner either personally or with the help of members of his family cultivated the land of the private respondents.5
Under such circumstances, we, sitting in this constitutional writ jurisdiction, do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the cultivation of the land of the private respondents by the bargadar by hired labourers, in contravention of the provision of law and thereby attracting the ground of termination as contemplated under Section 17(1)(b) of the said Act. Before parting with, we keep it on record that the other ground of termination as made out by the land owners, i.e. their bonafide requirement for bringing the land under their personal cultivation has not been proved in the instant case. As such, prayer for termination cannot be allowed on that ground.
However, since one of the grounds, i.e. the ground mentioned in Section 17(1)(b) of the said Act is satisfied in the instant case, we do not find any reason to disturb the order passed by the Learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)