Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) THIS writ application is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th November, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 1862 of 2000 (LRTT) which was heard along with O.A. No. 1863 of 2000 (LRTT). Both the said applications were filed challenging the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur, District Birbhum, as the executing authority under sub -section (2) of Section 20 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in connection with execution of the orders passed by Bhagchas Officer under section 18(1) of the aforesaid Act. The writ petitioners are the owners of the lands forming the subject matter of the said proceedings and the respondents Nos. 9 and 10 are admittedly bargadars in respect thereof under the petitioners.
(2.) AS indicated hereinabove, the proceedings were taken by the writ petitioners before the Bhagchas Officer under section 18(1) of the aforesaid Act against the said private respondents for non -delivery of owners' share of produce in respect of the lands in question. As will appear from the materials on record, the Bhagchas Officer passed orders in two separate cases in respect of the years 1396 and 1397 B.S. for a total money value of Rs. 12,927 -03 with a direction upon the private respondents herein to pay the owners' share of the said produce in three instalments commencing from 31st Chaitra, 1398 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 4,309/ - in each instalment. On account of non -compliance of the said order, the same was put into execution by the petitioners before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur, District Birbhum, who held that the Bhagchas Officer had taken up the matter in respect of the lands falling both within the district of Birbhum as well as in the district of Murshidabad. The Sub -Divisional Officer also held that since the Bhagchas Officer for the district of Birbhum did not have the jurisdiction to consider matters relating to the lands falling within the District of Murshidabad, the entire case stood vitiated and the order passed therein was not capable of being executed. Reference was also made to certain pending proceedings viz. FMAT 3740 of 1997, said to be pending decision in this court. As indicated hereinabove, aggrieved by the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur, District Birbhum, the writ petitioners moved the West bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal which observed that the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur had acted more like an Appellate Authority on the order passed by the Bhagchas Officer under section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and not as an Executing Authority was supposed to act. The learned Tribunal also observed that the execution proceedings were disposed of by the Executing Authority without passing any order in the proceedings. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer in Bhagchas Execution Case Nos. 8 of 1999 and 1 of 1991. However, the learned Tribunal also took note of the observations made by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur, regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Bhagchas Officer, Labpur, District Birbhum, in respect of the lands falling within the District of Murshidabad. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal also set aside the orders passed by the Bhagchas Officer in the two cases filed before him and directed the Bhagchas Officer attached to the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Labpur, to make assessment of the money value in respect of the lands that falls within his jurisdiction and to pass an order within two months from the date of communication of the order. The petitioners were also directed to make a separate application under section 18(1) of the Act in respect of the lands falling within the jurisdiction of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Burwan, District Murshidabad, and the said Authority was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal also directed that the Executing Authority in respect of the order that would be passed by the Bhagchas Officer, Labpur would be the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bolpur and the Executing Authority in respect of the lands falling within Burwan Block would be the Sub -Divisional Officer, Kandi.
(3.) APPEARING in support of the writ petition, Mr. Puspendu Bikash Sahoo, learned Advocate, urged that the learned Tribunal had misconstrued the provisions not only of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but had also failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the issues raised by the Executing Authority. Mr. Sahoo submitted that at no point of time either before the Bhagchas Officer or before the Appellate Authority or before the Executing Authority was the objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction taken by the private respondents and on the other hand, they duly participated in the proceedings right up to the execution stage. In fact, as was pointed out by Mr. Sahoo, the question of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the Executing Authority and not by any of the parties. In this connection, Mr. Sahoo firstly referred to the provisions of Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Section 20(2) of the aforesaid Act which indicate that any officer in dealing with proceedings under the said Act would exercise the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose indicated therein including enforcing or executing orders, as if such orders were decrees of a Civil Court. Mr. Sahoo also referred to Rule 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadars) Rules. 1956 which indicates the manner of execution of an order under Section 20(2) of the aforesaid Act and mentions that on receipt of a copy of the order, the officer or the authority, as the case may be, shall execute the order as far as practicable in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Sahoo urged that the above provisions left no room for doubt that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding execution of decrees would also be attracted to the facts of this case.;