Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Nirmalya Ghosh & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 5 December, 2024
05.12.2024
rpan/03
WPLRT 156 of 2024
Sri Nirmalya Ghosh & Another
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Susenjit Banik,
Ms. Sutapa Mukhopadhyay,
Mr. Mrinal Saha
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
Ms. Priyamvada Singh
... for the State/Respondents.
Affidavit-of-service, as filed by the petitioners, be kept on record.
Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the petitioners are the owners of the agricultural lands situated at Mouza IIchhoba, J.L. No. 140, Khatian No. 662/1 and 730/1, L.R. Plot No 2326 (hereinafter referred to as the said land) comprising of about 135 decimal. The private respondent nos. 7 and 8 are the recorded bargadars on the said land. The petitioners initially filed an application under Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act) seeking direction upon the private respondent nos.7 and 8 for delivery of share of produce with an alternative prayer for termination of cultivation of the bargadars. The said application was registered as Case No. 73/Pandua/2017 of 2017 and disposed of by an order dated 24th January, 2018 passed by the Bhag Chas Officer being the respondent no. 3 herein directing the 2 Bargadars 'to pay the amount as determined herein above to the petitioner by the scheduled dates failing which the applicant would be at liberty to apply for execution of this order before the appropriate authority'. As the said order was not complied with, the petitioners filed an application for execution of the said order before the respondent no.3 but the said respondent vide memo dated 9th July, 2018, forwarded the issue for consideration to the respondent no.4 being the executing authority under Section 20 (2) of the 1955 Act. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 passed an order on 9th October, 2018 directing the respondent no.3 to terminate the bargadarship of the recorded bargadars and to delete the names of the said bargadars from the record of right. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners again submitted a representation on 21st December, 2018 to the respondent no.3 but no steps were taken. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an original application (in short, OA), being OA 1351 of 2019 (LRTT). In the said application, a status report was filed by the respondent no.3 stating inter alia that the executing authority cannot give order of termination of cultivation by bargadars. Considering the same, the learned Tribunal disposed of the OA with liberty to the petitioners to take steps before the respondent no. 4, in accordance with law. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the private respondent nos. 7 3 and 8 had been illegally allowed to cultivate the land, though they had deliberately violated the order dated 24 th January, 2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and denied to pay the amount as directed. Such failure constitutes a ground for termination of bargadarship and though a prayer to that effect was made in the application dated 17th October, 2017 filed before the respondent no.3, the same was not considered. In execution of the said order the competent authority having jurisdiction, being the respondent no.4, rightly passed the order on 9 th October, 2018. The petitioners have neither been tendered the amount as determined by the order dated 24 th January, 2018 nor appropriate steps have been taken for termination of bargadarship. Such admitted facts and the arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmities in the order impugned warrant interference of this Court.
In spite of service, none appears today on behalf of the private respondent nos.7 and 8.
Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the order impugned in the present writ petition since the order passed by the respondent no.3 on 24 th January, 2018 was restricted to the issue of payment towards share of produce, as determined in the said order. In execution of the said order which did not contain any 4 direction towards termination, the respondent no.4 ought not to have directed termination of bargadarship of the respondent nos. 7 and 8.
We have heard the leaned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
We find that in the initial application submitted by the petitioners on 17th October, 2017 they sought for delivery of share of produce and in the alternate for termination of bargadarship of the private respondents. Considering the same, the respondent no.3 passed an order directing the private respondents to pay the determined amount in installments. However, there was no direction towards termination of cultivation of the bargadars in the event of failure of such payment of determined amount, though such provision exists in Section 18 of the 1955 Act. The learned Tribunal was, however, of the opinion that the execution was limited to the issue of payment of the amount determined by the respondent no.3 and that, as such, the direction towards termination of bargadarship of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 by the order passed in execution on 9 th October, 2018 by the respondent no.4, was not acceptable.
The case has a chequered history. The petitioners approached the competent authority seeking direction upon the private respondent nos.7 and 8 for delivery of share of produce with an alternative prayer for 5 termination of cultivation of the bargadars. In spite of a specific direction towards payment of the amount determined towards delivery of share of produce, the private respondents have deliberately violated the same and have been successful in avoiding termination of their bargadarship. The State must conduct itself with high probity and candour and ensure that its subjects do not succumb to the procedural rigmarole.
In the said conspectus and without interfering with the order of the learned Tribunal by which liberty was granted to the petitioners to execute the direction towards payment of the amount determined in the order dated 24 th January, 2018, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit an application for termination of bargadarship of the respondent nos.7 and 8 along with a copy of this order and all other relevant documents including the orders passed by the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.4 to the Bhag Chas Officer, being the respondent no.3 herein within a period of two weeks from date.
In the event such application is submitted, the respondent no.3 shall consider the same in the light of the observations made in this order, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondent nos.7 and 8 and to take a decision towards termination of the bargadarship of the respondent nos.7 and 8 and to communicate the same to 6 the petitioners and the private respondents, mandatorily within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioners' application, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)