1971 (4) TMI 103 - HC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside Revenue Officer's injunctions under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, clarifies lack of jurisdiction.

Mahabub Hossain and Ors. Versus Biswanath Nandy and Ors.

The Court held that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctions under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It set aside the ad interim ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Revenue Officer to issue injunction under West Bengal Land Reforms Act.2. Interpretation of Section 57 of the Act regarding powers of Revenue Officer.3. Comparison with other statutes granting inherent powers to tribunals.4. Inherent jurisdiction of tribunal to issue injunction for preservation of property.Analysis:1. The case involved the question of whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to issue an injunction under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners argued that the lands in question were bagan lands and not agricultural lands, making the applications for pre-emption incompetent. The Court noted that a decision on this issue required further factual investigation and left it open for consideration at a later stage.2. The interpretation of Section 57 of the Act was crucial in determining the powers of the Revenue Officer. The Court analyzed that while the Revenue Officer was empowered to decide pre-emption matters under specific sections of the Act, Section 57 did not explicitly confer powers under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court rejected the argument that Section 57 was illustrative, emphasizing that the Revenue Officer was not designated as a court and did not possess all the powers of a civil court.3. The Court distinguished the case from precedents involving other statutes granting inherent powers to tribunals. It highlighted a decision where a Rent Controller was deemed a court under the statute, allowing for the issuance of injunctions under Section 151. However, in the present case, the Revenue Officer lacked similar statutory empowerment to exercise inherent powers under Section 151 or Order 39.4. Lastly, the Court addressed the argument that the Revenue Officer should have inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions for the preservation of property pending pre-emption proceedings. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Revenue Officer, as a tribunal, did not possess inherent jurisdiction to issue injunctions. It emphasized that any changes to the property's character during proceedings should be addressed through expeditious disposal rather than interim injunctions.In conclusion, the Court made the Rules absolute, setting aside the ad interim injunctions issued by the Revenue Officer and directing the Officer to proceed with the pre-emption proceedings in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctions under Section 151 or Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. No costs were awarded, and the interim stay application was not addressed.