WILMAN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. SUSANTA ROY KAYAL AND ORS v. N.G. Sarkar

defendant Opposite Party No. 4 and 5 for declaration and injunction describing themselves as Bargadars on the suit land. The said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff themselves and the Learned Court by order No. 19 dated January14, 2008 recorded the grounds of dismissal of the suit stating that the disputes have been settled between the parties out of Court, hence the suit be and the same is dismissed for non-prosecution as prayed for. b) The petitioner No. 1 Company purchased the suit property by virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance both dated 12th May, 2008 and at the said material point of time the suit was not there and was withdrawn. Prior to purchase the petitioner No. 1 delivered vacant possession of the said land on October 31, 2007 accordingly to possession certificates were also given to him which he has annexed with the present petition. After such purchase the Opposite Party Nos 1 to 3 /plaintiffs started claiming that they are the Bargadars in respect of a portion of the purchase land of the petitioners being the suit land herein . Accordingly a proceeding started before the Learned Land Tribunal under case No. OA 1039/2011 (LRTT) and obtain an order whereby directed the B.L. and L.R.O to dispose of the pending case within two months. By virtue of a final order said B.L and L.R.O held that recording of Bargadars being wrong and thereby struck of and corrected the names of the plaintiffs from the record of rights and also the said land was mutated in the name of the petitioner No. 1 as the owner in respect of entire Dag by putting new L.R Khatian No. as 2547. c) The petitioner received summons of the suit which transpire that O.P. No 1 to 3/plaintiffs surreptitiously in collusion with the original defendant restored the suit which was dismissed ex-parte and included the petitioner as defendant No 3 and 4 therein and accordingly sent such summons. The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that they are the recorded Bargadar in respect of suit land is there father being “Bhagchasi” where in possession of the suit land started to cultivate from 1376 .B.S. and used to deliver usufruct to the original owner Ram Samanta, Krishna Kali Smanata, Kali Samanmta , Sasanka Samanta but did not hold any Bargas certificate. Accordingly the plaintiffs claimed decree for declaration that the plaintiffs have every right to cultivate the suit land without any interference of the defendants as recorded Bargadars and also a decree for injunction against the defendants not to disturb the plaintiffs possession at the time of cultivation or harvesting. d) Immediately on receiving the summons the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute relates to “Bhagchasi” and “Barga” and the Court has no jurisdiction to try such dispute. Further point taken on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties the suit is not maintainable and also is bad by the principles of Res Judicata. e) The said application was heard by the Learned Court and vide an order dated January 2nd, 2014 the said application was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby this revisional has been filed.

#3. The bone of contention to challenge the order is that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the instant dispute and is specifically barred under Section 21 (i) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955. In this regard the Learned Advocate has been relied upon a decision reported in, Nanda Gopal Pramanik vs. Kabir Kayan and others1 and also Azizar Rahaman vs. State of West Bengal and others2 reported in. It is further argued that the claim of the Opposite Party has been dismissed and the Opposite Party is not a Bargadar in this regard as the same has been held by the concerned Authority, B.L. and L.R. O. Bishnupur 1 from time to time by order dated 13th February, 2012 and it was also held by the Authority that the Opposite Party has no right over the said property and is not a Bargadar.

#4. Further argument advanced by the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner that the suit was previously compromised and therefore this suit is not maintainable which is filed on the self-same cause of action without obtaining any leave to file a fresh proceeding while withdrawing the previous suit which was an unconditional withdrawal. In this regard relied upon a decision reported in Ramesh chandra Sankla and others vs. Bikram Cement and others3 and another judgment reported in Bakhtawar Singh and another vs. Sadakaur and another4. Accordingly prays for setting aside such order passed by the Learned Court refusing the prayer made by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.