Puma Chandra Barooah, J. - (1.) On December 6, 1976, the petitioner, Ananta Kumar Naskar claiming be the bargadar in respect of certain lands in Mauza Kreshnapur within police station, Mandir Bazar, in the district of 24-Parganas, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, alleging, interalia, that the opposite parties had on November 29, 1976 cut and removed the paddy grown on the said land by the petitioner. Cognizance was duly taken and charges were framed under sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against in accused opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties filed an application before the learned Magistrate disputing the question that the petitioner was the Bargadar in respect of the cultivated lands and praying for a reference to the Bhag Chas Officer under section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for determination whether the petitioner was a Bargadar or not. The learned Magistrate accordingly by an order dated May 3, 1978 made a reference to the local Bhag Chas Officer under section 21(3) of the Act for determination of the question as to the whether the complainant was a Bargadar in respect of the case lands or not and to convey his decision to him dated June 13, 1978. This order is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.
(2.) The rule initially came up for hearing before Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. and the learned Judge by his order dated March 8, 1979 has referred this case to the Division Bench as he was of the view that an important question of law was involved.
(3.) Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it was not necessary for the learned Magistrate to make a reference to the Bhag Chas Officer under section 21(3) of the Act to determine the question in issue in the case started on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, namely, whether the accused opposite parties had committed theft of the paddy grown by the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties has, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in making the reference to the Bhag Chas Officer as it was essential to determine the question as to whether the complainant was the Bargadar in respect of the case-lands or not and whether he had a legal right to grow the paddy thereon. Mr. Mahato appearing on behalf of the State, has supported Mr. Panda's contentions.;