Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) ASSAILING the order dated 31st January, 2011 passed in O.A. No. 899 of 2009 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench, this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads such: "31.01.11. The matter is taken up for hearing. We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Private Respondent No. 7-12 and Learned Government Representative. The present petitioners challenged the order passed by the appellate authority on 25.08.2008 in connection with Appeal Case No. 55 of 2007. That was one under section 54 of WBLR Act. In this case 3 plots are involved namely .76 decimal of plot No. 96, 51 decimal in plot No. 97/473 and 9 satak in plot No. 98. It is to be mentioned here that the present petitioners claimed bargadar under Gour Chandra Koley & Ors. It is their case that they were possessing the said plots as bargadar under the said persons for a long period i.e. from 1989. It is the further case that they used to deliver share of the crop as well as fish to the owners for which receipts were granted which are in the form of "Sikarukti" and "Angikarpatra". Those are annexed and are at page 15 and 16. The lands in question were transferred in favour of the Private Respondent in the year 2007 and thereafter they filed application before the B.L. & L.R.O., Purbasthali-II, District-Burdwan, for recording their names. The B.L. & L.R.O. disposed of the application by passing order to the effect that name of the present petitioners be recorded with respect to 45 decimal of land in Dug No. 96. The other prayer was denied. Against the order passed the B.L. 8, L.R:0., one appeal was preferred whose No. has been mentioned earlier. The Appeal was transferred to the S.D.L. & L.R.O., who by order impugned i.e., 25.08.2008 affirmed the order passed by B.L. &, L.R.O. By the said order the S.D.L. & L.R.O., directed the B.L. & L.R.O. to pass order with respect to another application wherein prayer was made by the present petitioner to record their names as "permissive possessor". At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to at page 15 & 16 of the application and on the basis of the same it was contended that the previous owners admitted the present petitioners as bargadar for which those documents were executed. It is the further plea of the present petitioners that as that was nothing but admission by the previous owner the present petitioners will be bound to accept the same as after their purchase they have stepped into the shoes of the previous owner. It was the further prayer of the present petitioners that the B.L. & L.R.O., in his order mentioned the ward fit for "Boro cultivation". Accordingly it was contended that it is without jurisdiction of the B.L. & L.R.O. to mention those words as bargadar means and includes the name of persons who cultivate land. The said pleas were strongly opposed by Learned Private Respondent contended before us that the present petitioners also approached the Civil Court at Kalna by filing once case which is number as T.A. 17 of 2010 and the prayer of the present petitioners for interim injunction was rejected. During hearing it was revealed that the present petitioners failed to get any order of injunction and the said application was disposed of. Learned Government Representative raised objection regarding admissibility of the "Angikarpatra" and "Sikarukti" which are appearing at page 16 & 15. It goes without saying that under the WBLR Act the owner shall give receipt on getting the share of the crop and it is to be granted for every year. There is no provision in the L.R. Act for providing a single receipt for a period of more than 10 years. The said two documents, under the WBLR Act can never be accepted as receipt showing delivery of share of the produce to by the petitioners. The apprehension in the mind of this Tribunal that those were concocted or manufactured only or the purpose of the said cannot be brushed aside. At the time hearing the attention of this bench was drawn to the case reporeted in (2009) 5 ACC specially to paragraph 49. We have gone though the said para meticulously. In our humble opinion the act of the said case is totally different from the instant one and the principle as laid down in that case is not attracted in the instant case. It is to be mentioned that at the time of hearing the order impugned was also challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the S.D. & L.R.O., being the appellate authority have no jurisdiction to direct the B.L. & L.R.O. to dispose of the prayer for permissive possession filed by the appellant before him. It was the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application was already disposed of and by passing the said direction, the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction which will violate the natural justice. We cannot accept the said plea. The order passed in connection with Misc. Case No. 30 of 2008 is at page 35 which goes to show that the order was passed on 20.10.2008 on the basis of order passed by the appellate authority in connection with Appeal Case No. 55 of 2009. We therefore hold that the said direction was justified which was subsequently complied by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. In view of the said position and also considering the materials on record we are of clear opinion that the instant application has no merit and the same is dismissed on contest." A very short question involved as to whether in on plot there may be more than one person as bargadar. The Bhagchas Officer recorded names of present petitioners being two in number as bargadars in respect of certain portion of land.
(3.) ASSAILING such barga recording which was for certain portion, the bargadars, the present writ petitioners moved the Appellate Authority claiming barga right in respect of entire plot measuring 0.75 decimal, unsuccessfully. Challenging the decision of Appellate Authority, application before learned Tribunal below was moved which stood dismissed.;