High CourtsSingle Bench(1980) 05 CAL CK 0004

Debalarani Nandy and Others vs State of West Bengal and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 5 May 1980 · Citation: 84 CWN 623

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.N. Ray, J
CASE NUMBER
Co. No. 3829 (W) of 1980

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 351 words

G.N. Ray, J.—It appears that proceeding under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has been initiated before the Bhag Chas Court over a dispute relating to delivery of bhag produce by an alleged Bargadar, The petitioners prayed before the Bhag Chas Officer that their cases should be represented by their Constituted Attorney and or authorised agent but the said prayer was rejected. Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the state pointed out that by a Notification by the Board of Revenue, dated 3-5-79 it was decided that to avoid delay and other complication representation by an authorised agent should not be allowed. But there is a specific provision in the Rule itself being sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Bargadar) Rules 1956 that a proceeding before the Bhag Chas Court may be represented by the applicant or by his agent duly authorised by him and law is well settled that executive instruction can only supplement but cannot supplant statutoy rules. Accordingly, an order rejecting prayer of the petitioners to be represented by their constituted Attorney and or authorised agent should be quashed and it is directed that the Bhag Chas Officer will allow the petitioners to get then-case represented either by their constituted Attorney or by a duly authorised agent in accordance with the said sun rule (3) of Rule 6. It appears that in the meantime, three persons have been examined in the instant proceeding. The petitioners should, therefore, be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said three persons already examined. With these observations the application is disposed of. The Bhag Chas Officer will give a notice to the petitioners about; the next date of hearing and such notice should be given at least a week before the date of hearing so that the petitioners can get themselves ready. By way of abundant caution, it is made clear that other contentions made in the writ petition have been kept open as it is no: necessary to decide the said contentions at this stage. There will be no order as to costs in this application.