BISHNU PADA DATTA & ORS. Vs. JOYDEB DATTA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point arises for determination in this Rule.

(2.) In this Rule the petitioners contend that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the cross -objection was not maintainable and further that Plot No. 275 was not in their exclusive possession.

(3.) As regards the first point, neither the Act, nor the Rules framed thereunder contain any provision empowering a Respondent to file cross -objections before the Tribunal. Sec. 44(3) empowers an aggrieved person to file an "Appeal in the prescribed manner to a Tribunal appointed for the purpose of this Sec. and within such period and on payment of such court fees as may be prescribed." Under Sec. 55(2) of the Act, "The State Government may appoint one or more Tribunals for the purpose of Sec. 44. Such Tribunal shall be composed of a single member who shall be a person, who is or has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge and shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908".