Skip to content


Bharat Chandra Maiti Vs. Gour Chandra Adak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 1123 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal95
ActsWest Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950 - Sections 7(1), 9(2) and 18; ;Constitution of India - Article 14
AppellantBharat Chandra Maiti
RespondentGour Chandra Adak
Appellant AdvocatePanchanan Chaudhury and ;Nirmal Chandra Choudhury, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateSudhangsu Kumar Dey and ;Anil Kumar Sett, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....only applies to cases of disputes referred to in section 7 (1) which requires to be decided by la board referred to in that sub-section. the dispute 'which is now in question does not relate to any of the matters referred to in section 7 (1) and as there is no board established, the dispute, even if it came within section 7 (1) cannot be said to be one which requires to be decided by a board. in these circumstances, the order made by the learned munsif staying the suit is wholly unauthorised.2. it was contended by mr. dey appearing for the opposite party that otherwise there will be a discrimination which will offend article 14 of the constitution. the discrimination, if any, will be between bargadars in an area where the board had been established and bargadars in an area where no such.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G.N. Das, J.

1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff against an order of Mr. J. C. Chakravartty, learned Munsif, staying the plaintiff's suit under Section 9 (2) read with Section 18 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The learned Munsif found negativing the defendant's contention that he was a Bhagchasi. It is not disputed that no Bhag Conciliation Board has been established in the area where these properties are situated. Section 9 (2) of the Act only applies to cases of disputes referred to in Section 7 (1) which requires to be decided by la Board referred to in that sub-section. The dispute 'which is now in question does not relate to any of the matters referred to in Section 7 (1) and as there is no Board established, the dispute, even if it came within Section 7 (1) cannot be said to be one which requires to be decided by a Board. In these circumstances, the order made by the learned Munsif staying the suit is wholly unauthorised.

2. It was contended by Mr. Dey appearing for the opposite party that otherwise there will be a discrimination which will offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The discrimination, if any, will be between bargadars in an area where the Board had been established and Bargadars in an area where no such Board had been established. I do not think Article 14 of the Constitution can be of any assistance to the opposite party.

3. The result therefore is that this Rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to hear the suit as early as posible. The petitioner will get the costs of this Rule, hearing fee two gold mohurs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //