SUJAUDDIN LASKAR AND ORS. v. SAMIRUDDIN SEKH AND ORS.

disposed of. In Re: MAT 1083 of 2025

#8. In the instant appeal the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2025, as passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 9566 of 2025 impugned at the instance of the appellants who are the private respondents in the said writ petition. By the impugned judgment and learned Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition passed a direction upon the police authorities to see that the nature and character of the property in dispute should not be altered without the permission of the Civil Court.

#9. At the time of hearing Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, at the very outset draws our attention to the copy of the writ petition as has been annexed with CAN 2 of 2025. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that from the prayer portion of writ petition it would reveal that that the writ petitioners who are the private respondents in the instant appeal have not made any prayer commanding for issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs against the police authorities to take appropriate steps in order to protect the nature and character of the property without permission of the Civil Court and even then learned Single Bench while passing the impugned order passed such direction.

#10. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that from averments made in the writ petition it would reveal that a property dispute cropped up between the present appellants and private respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) over the property in question particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the said writ petition. It is thus submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that it is a fit case for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

#11. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State, however, supports impugned order. He submits before this court that in the prayer portion of the writ petition no prayer was made by the writ petitioners commanding the police authorities to see that the nature and character of the property be protected till the passing of the appropriate order by a Civil Court.

#12. It is further made known to us both from the side of the appellants as well as from the Respondent-State that as on this day no civil is pending between the present appellants and private respondent no.1 (writ petitioner).

#13. At this juncture, if we look to the averments as made in the said writ petition being WPA 9566 of 2025, we find that paragraphs-2 and 3 of the said writ petition that the present appellants and the private respondent no.1 are claiming their respective right of bargadar as well as ownership over the property, particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the said writ petition. It further appears from the writ petition that it is the case of the respondent no.1/ writ petitioner the present appellants are making attempt to dig the soil of the property in question in order to deprive the writ petitioner to enjoy the peaceful possession thereof which in effect of depriving the writ petitioner from cultivation over the property in question.

#14. At this juncture, we propose to look to Section 17, 19B and 21 of Chapter-III W.B. Land Reforms Act, 1955(the said Act in short) which are quoted herein below in verbatim: “17. Termination of cultivation by bargadar.- (1) No person shall be entitled to terminate cultivation of his land by a bargadar except in execution of an order, made by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint, on one or more of the following grounds- (a) the bargadar has without any reasonable cause failed to cultivate the land, or has used agriculture; (b) that the land is not cultivated by the bargadar personally; (c) that the bargadar has failed to tender deposit to the full extent the share of the produce as required by sub-section (2), or sub-section (4), as the case may be, of section 16: for any purpose other Provided that no order for the termination of cultivation, made on the ground specified in this clause, shall be given effect to if the bargadar delivers to the person, whose land he cultivates, the share of the produce due to such person, or pays to him the market price thereof, within such time and in such instalments as the officer or authority making the order may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, specify in his behalf; (d) that the person owning the land requires it it under personal cultivation: for bringing (2) ……… (3)………… (4) ………….. (5) …………….. (6) ………………. **************************************************** 19B. Restoration of land to bargadar.-- (1) If a person owning any land terminates or causes to be terminated the cultivation of the land by a bargadar in contravention of the provisions of this Act, then any officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, shall, on an application by such bargadar, by order direct- (a) in a case where such land has not been cultivated, or has been cultivated by the owner or by any person on his behalf other than a bargadar, that the land be immediately restored to the applicant and further that forty per cent of any produce of the land shall be forfeited to the State Government and the remaining sixty per cent of such crops shall be retained by the applicant; (b) in a case where such land has been cultivated by a person other than the bargadar engaged by the owner that the land be restored at the end of the cultivation season to the applicant and further that the "person other than the bargadar shall retain twenty-five per cent of the crops harvested before cent) of such crops to the applicant: restoration and make over the "remaining seventy-five per cent of such crops to the applicant: (1A) …………. (2) ……………… (3)……………….. ****************************************************

#21. Bar of Jurisdiction.-- (1) No order or other proceedings whatsoever under this Chapter shall be questioned in any Civil Court and no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter mentioned in sections 17, 18, 198 and 20B. (2) ……….. (3) ………….. (4) ……………….”

#15. On careful perusal of the aforementioned enactment and the factual aspects as involved in the instant writ petition, we find that the dispute between the present appellants and the private respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) falls within the category of Chapter-III of the said Act of 1955.

#16. It has been indicated in Section 21 of the said Act that the disputes with regard to the right and grievance bargadar have been expressly taken away from the purview of the Civil Court.

#17. In view of such, we thus find that observation of the learned Single Bench directing the police authorities to see that the nature and character of the property should not be altered without the permission of the Civil Court is excess and not in accordance with the provision of the said Act of 1955 and thus, the said direction upon the police authorities by the learned Single Bench is hereby expunged.

#18. With the aforementioned observation and without expressing any opinion on merits of the writ petition, the instant appeal disposed of.

#19. With the disposal of the instant appeal, CAN 2 of 2025 is also disposed of.

#20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (SUJOY PAUL, CJ.) (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)