Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2330 (CAL)

Birbal Oraon v. Murarilal Rajoria

2024-09-03

Raichattopadhyay

body2024
Judgment : RaiChattopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner has come before the Court with somewhat an innocuous prayer that his application dated February 18, 2022, submitted before the Revenue Officer, Falakata Block, Land & Land Reforms Officer, under Section 14E of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, be adjudicated and decided by the said authority within a stipulated period of time. 2. Mr. Saha, who has represented the petitioner would say that under Section 14E of the said Act, the Revenue Officer is empowered, upon receipt of a complaint from a Rayat belonging to Schedule Tribe, regarding contravention of provision of Section 14C thereof, in respect of transfer of a plot of land or any portion thereof, to set aside such an improper transfer. 3. Allegedly, transfer of the land of the petitioner, who is a member of the Schedule Tribe is not in compliance with the mode of transfer of land by the Schedule Tribes, as provided under Section 14C of the Act of 1955. Hence, to seek redress, the petitioner has submitted the statutory complaint vide his letter dated February 18, 2022. 4. Mr. Saha has further submitted that the petitioner and also the opposite parties have been given opportunity of hearing by the said statutory authority, in respect of petitioner’s statutory complaint, that is, dated February 18, 2022. However, allegedly the same has not yet been disposed of by dint of any order passed by the Revenue Officer. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved and seeks an order that the Revenue Officer be directed for time bound disposal of the said statutory complaint of the petitioner, dated February 18, 2022. 5. Challenge to such prayer of the petitioner has been raised on behalf of the opposite party on the basis of Section 7 and 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997. Mr. Sarkar appearing for the opposite party has challenged the maintainability of this case by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the provisions under Section 7 and 8 of the Act of 1997. He would say that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is a “specified Act” in terms of Section 2 (r) of the Act of 1997. He would say that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is a “specified Act” in terms of Section 2 (r) of the Act of 1997. Hence, he would say that the provision under Section 6 (d) would be relevant and that provisions under Section 7 and 8 of the 1997 Act for exclusion of jurisdiction of any Court including the Single Bench of the High Court and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1997 would be evident. By referring to the provisions thereof, Mr. Sarkar would say that the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court has been saved as regards any application relating to the provisions of the said “specified Act” of 1955. He would say that the instant case may be dismissed due to want of jurisdiction by the Court. To buttress his submission as above Mr. Sarkar would refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR OnLine 2022 Cal 1687 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Anchit Agarwal) . The Court has held as follows : “23. What indubitably follows from the above discussion is that for adjudication of any dispute which touches any provision of a ‘specified Act’, one must approach the tribunal at the first instance and all other civil Courts including the High Court excepting the Division Bench exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, have lost the power and jurisdiction to entertain such dispute.” The Court has also held therein that, since the Act of 1955 is a “specified Act” under Section 2(r) of the 1997 Act, the writ petitioner ought to have approached the Land Tribunal, as the jurisdiction of the Learned Single Judge stood ousted thereby. The Court held that the Learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the case. Mr. Sarkar has sought for dismissal of the case. 6. In this case the Court is to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In doing so the Court would not enter into the merits of the matter but see that due process of law is being undergone and that there is no jurisdiction error or procedural irregularity. Procedural irregularity resulting into executive arbitrariness, if any, is the matter of concern for this Court in this Case. 7. In doing so the Court would not enter into the merits of the matter but see that due process of law is being undergone and that there is no jurisdiction error or procedural irregularity. Procedural irregularity resulting into executive arbitrariness, if any, is the matter of concern for this Court in this Case. 7. The Court notices that Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, has ousted the jurisdiction of this Court as regards any proceeding or application or in relation to adjudication or trial of disputes or applications relating to land reforms or matters connected therewith or incidental thereto or any other matter under any provision of the “specified Act”, including the Land Reforms Act, 1955. 8. However, as a matter of fact in this case this Court has not been called upon to decide or adjudicate any dispute, trial or application relating to land reforms or matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. In this case the Court is called upon to adjudicate as regards justification by the statutory authority in not disposing of the statutory application of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time. Therefore no question of adjudication of any dispute under the said Act or relating to trial thereunder is involved in this case. The Court therefore finds no impediment in entertaining the present case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is trite that the power of superintendence entitles the High Court to pass orders for administrative exigency and expediency. An order therefor, without impinging upon the rights and interest of the parties to any judicial proceeding would not be without jurisdiction, but should be held necessary for the sake of propriety and expediency. A provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. The instant revision is not to seek correction of any error but inviting the Court to exercise supervisory power as to the due and proper compliance of provisions of the statute. The Court cannot be held restrained to exercise its power of superintendence or supervise in case of exigency or expediency under Article 227, in view of provisions under any statute. 11. The Court cannot be held restrained to exercise its power of superintendence or supervise in case of exigency or expediency under Article 227, in view of provisions under any statute. 11. On the discussion as above the Court finds that the judgment relied on by the opposite party as mentioned above would be distinguishable on facts and not applicable in this case. 12. On the contrary in exercise of the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court would not be devoid of adequate authority to note the procedural lapses on the part of the statutory authority under the Land Reforms Act, 1955, which is no way connected with the adjudication of the dispute or trial of the case under the said law and remedy the same by an order. 13. Accordingly, in my considered opinion the present case by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should succeed. 14. C.O. 132 of 2024 is allowed. 15. The Revenue Officer, Falakata Block, Land & Land Reforms Officer is directed to pass an order with respect to the statutory complaint made by the petitioner before its vide order dated February 18, 2022, since hearing has already been concluded with respect to that by the said authority. 16. The Revenue Officer, Falakata Block, Land & Land Reforms Officer shall pass a reasoned order as to the statutory complaint by the petitioner as above, within the period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 17. C.O 132 of 2024 is disposed of. 18. The urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.