Debi Prosad Pal, J. - (1.) The only question raised in this appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is a tenant under the defendant-appellant and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land as a tenant.
(2.) The defendant is the owner of the disputed land. The defendant brought a case against the plaintiff under Section 17 (1) (a) and (b) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Bhagchas Officer, Barrackpur for eviction of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant required the suit land for bringing the same under personal cultivation. In the said proceeding the plaintiff contended that he was not a bargadar but a tenant. This plea was overruled by the Bhagchas Officer who held the plaintiff to be a bargadar. Against that decision an appeal was preferred before the Munsif, Second Court, Barasat who upheld the decision of the Bhagchas Officer. The plaintiff obtained a rule thereafter from the High Court but ultimately the said rule, on conlest, was discharged by the Hon'ble High Court. The preliminary objection having filed up to the High Court the case before the Bhagchas Officer proceeded on its merits. At this stage the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that he is a tenant and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land as a tenant and from proceeding with the case now pending before the Bhagchas Officer. Before the learned Munsif, the defendant was successful in raising the preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the present suit was ousted by Section 21 of the Act. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal holding inter alia that the Civil Court has not lost its jurisdiction to entertain the present suit to determine whether a person is a tenant or not and Section 21 of the Act cannot be considered to be a bar.
(3.) On a second appeal before this Court, Mr. Nirmal Ch. Chakraborty appearing for the defendant-appellant has contended that Section 21 of the Act gives a finality to an order passed by the Special Tribunals set up under the Act and when there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain disputes which have been decided by the authorities under the Act, this present suit was not maintainable.;