- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shayamal Atta & Ors. v. State Of West Bengal, The Ld. Thika Controller & Anr. Opposite Parties.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners filed an application before the Thika Controller seeking to have their names recorded as thika tenants in respect of a disputed property. This application led to G.R Case No. 10 of 1982-1983. The opposite party contested the claim, and by order dated March 19, 1990, the Thika Controller found that the petitioners were not thika tenants and dismissed their application. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97 of 1990 before the District Judge, Howrah. The Additional District Judge, 4th Court, by order dated August 5, 1992, affirmed the Thika Controller’s decision. The petitioners then filed the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the affirmation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Thika Controller has jurisdiction under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant.
- Whether the application filed by the petitioners should have been dismissed on merit or on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Conceded that the Thika Controller does not have the power to determine thika tenancy status under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981.
- Submitted that under wrong instruction, the petitioners filed the application.
- Argued that the Thika Controller and the First Appellate Court should have dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction rather than on merit.
Respondent's Arguments
- Did not dispute the appellant’s submission regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Thika Controller.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the provisions of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, and found that the Thika Controller is not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant. The court agreed with the appellant’s contention that the application should have been dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction rather than on merit. Although the court affirmed the ultimate conclusion that the petitioners’ application should be rejected, it set aside the findings of the Thika Controller and the Additional District Judge on the basis that they erred in dismissing the application on merit. The court therefore dismissed the application as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed the revisional application, holding that the petitioners’ application before the Thika Controller was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. The decision clarifies that the Thika Controller cannot adjudicate tenancy status under this Act. There will be no order as to costs. No new precedent was set beyond the direct effect on the parties.
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant before the Thika Controller and is directed against order dated August 5, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, 4th Court. Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 97 of 1990 thereby affirming those dated March 19, 1990 passed by the Thika Controller in G.R Case No. 10/1982-1983.
2. The present petitioners filed an application before the Thika Controller for recording their names as thika tenant in respect of the disputed property.
3. The said application gave rise to the aforesaid G.R Case No. 10 of 1982-1983. The opposite party contested the said claim of the present petitioners and ultimately by order dated March 19, 1990 the Thika Controller found that the petitioners are not the thika tenant is respect of the property and thus dismissed their-application.
4. Being dissatisfied the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc Appeal No. 97 of 1990 before the District Judge, Howrah which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge 4th Court and the learned Additional District Judge by order dated August 5, 1992 affirmed the said order passed by the Thika Controller.
5. Being dissatisfied the petitioners have preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Mukherjee, the leaned Advocate appearing on behalf of she petitioners frankly conceded that under the provision of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 the Thika Controller is not vested with the power to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Mr. Mukherjee submits that under wrong instruction his clients preferred such application. The grievance of Mr. Mukherjee is that the learned Thika Controller as well as the First Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the application on merit but ought to have turned dawn the same on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mukherjee. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after going through the provisions contained in Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee. The aforesaid Act does not give any power to the Thika Controller to adjudicate whether a person is a thika tenant or not. Thus in the aforesaid circumstances the Thika Controller ought to have summarily dismissed Mr. Mukherjee's clients application for recording their names as thika tenants. Although I affirm the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the, Thika Controller that the application should be rejected, I am not at one with him that it should be dismissed on merit. Thus the finding of the learned tribunal below and the Additional District Judge are set aside and the application filed by the petitioner before Thika Controller is dismissed as not maintainable with the above observation this revisional application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
8. S.K.G
Alert