Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. No other controversy of the case was urged before us in this matter.

4. In order to appreciate the nature of the question involved in this case, the Court is required to consider the provisions under which LRTT has been set up. It cannot be disputed that LRTT has been set up under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said Act was passed in terms of the enabling provisions under Article 323B of the Constitution of India which empowers the appropriate Legislature to enact law for the setting up of a Tribunal for adjudication and trial by such tribunals of disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in Sub-Article 2 of the Article 323B of the Constitution of India. Under clauses (d) of sub Article (2) of Article 323B of the Constitution, there are provisions enabling the State Government to set up a Tribunal dealing with land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as defined under Article 31A or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling of agricultural land or in any other way LRTT has been set up by virtue of the aforesaid constitutional provisions. Under the Sub-Article(3) of Article 323(1)B may provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of Tribunals. Such law may specify the jurisdiction, power including the power to punish for contempt and authority which may be exercised by each of such Tribunal. Such Article(4) of Article 323B contains an overriding clause to the following effect:

323 B(4). The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time beign in force.

5. Acting under such constitutional provision, LRTT, which has been set up, and it has been conferred with powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA).

6. Section 15 of the said Act confers on LRTT the contempt jurisdiction, power and authority as a High Court has and the LRTT may exercise the same under the provisions of the CCA, subject to two modifications. They are (a) reference in CCA, to a High Court shall be construed as a reference of the Tribunal; and (b) any reference therein to the Advocate General in section 15 of CCA, shall be construed as a reference to the Advocate General of the State.

17. The jurisdiction of the LRTT under section 6 is in respect of certain specified Act mentioned in section 2(r) of the said Act.

18. Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act provide for exclusion of jurisdiction of other Courts. But that is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to be exercise by Division Bench and also subject to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Section 9 provides for transfer of case records from High Court to the LRTT except, in those matters where Division Bench of High Court already has exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 10 provides for applications to be made to the Tribunal. Section 11 provides for appeals or applications to lie before the Division Bench of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 12 provides for that any reference to High Courts in any specified Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the LRTT with effect. From the date of its appointment by State Government under section 6.

21. It is axiomatic that a Superior Court of Records with plenary jurisdiction like the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India has inherent contempt power. This power is an inalienable attribute of such Court of Records in view of the age old tradition of English Common Law. LRTT as already stated above, cannot be equated with the High Courts nor can it be their substitute. If the contempt jurisdiction had not been conferred on LRTT under section 15 of the said Act, LRTT would not have been able to exercise contempt jurisdiction at all. But exercise of contempt jurisdiction by High Court is independent of the provisions of CCA. Of course the regulatory provisions under CCA, 1971 are guiding factors to the High Courts and Supreme Court for exercise of the contempt power. But one thing is clear that contempt power of High Courts and Supreme Court has not been conferred by the CCA. Such power existed independently of CCA and even before CCA or any contempt law was enacted (see Surendra Nath Banerjee v. Cheif Justice and the Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal (10 Indian Appeal 171) and Sukdev Singh Sodhi, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 186. Such inherent power of a Court of Record has been recognized by the Constitution under Article 215 Constitution of India in so far as High Court is concerned and by Article 129 of the Constitution of India in so far as Supreme Court is concerned. So the power of LRTT in so far as contempt jurisdiction is concerned has to be strictly exercised in accordance with the provisions of CCA subject to minor modifications suggested in section 15 of the said Act.