1965 (8) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 57 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954.
2. Jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 to exercise inherent powers of a Civil Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Applicability of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction or revision of a finally published record of rights.
4. Whether specific statutory provisions for correction of records preclude the exercise of inherent powers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 57 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954:
The appellants challenged the validity of the notice dated March 27, 1963, issued by respondent No. 3 under Section 57 of the Act. The notice required the appellants to produce records related to the settlement recorded in Khatian No. 140, which the respondent deemed invalid. The appellants argued that the notice was issued arbitrarily and without jurisdiction, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record of rights. The court noted that Section 57 of the Act confers upon a revenue officer the power to compel the production of statements and documents and to enforce attendance of witnesses. However, the court found that the notice was issued in connection with proceedings under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which the respondent had no jurisdiction to invoke.

2. Jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 3 to Exercise Inherent Powers of a Civil Court Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appellants contended that respondent No. 3, not being a civil court, could not exercise the inherent powers of a civil court. The court agreed, stating that the inherent power of a civil court is not a power created by the Code of Civil Procedure but merely recognized and preserved by it. The court held that a quasi-judicial tribunal, such as the respondent No. 3, cannot exercise the inherent powers of a civil court unless explicitly conferred by statute. The trial court's view that the respondent acted as a quasi-judicial tribunal and could exercise such powers was rejected.

3. Applicability of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Correction or Revision of a Finally Published Record of Rights:
The appellants argued that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked for correction or revision of a finally published record of rights, as there are specific provisions in the Act for such corrections. The court upheld this argument, noting that Section 44(2-a) of the Act provides for the revision of records of rights even after final publication. The court emphasized that the inherent powers of a civil court can only be exercised when there is no specific statutory provision available for the same purpose.

4. Whether Specific Statutory Provisions for Correction of Records Preclude the Exercise of Inherent Powers:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Manohar Lal Chopra v. R. B. Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, which held that the inherent powers of the court could not be invoked if there is a specific statutory provision for making the order. The court concluded that since Section 44(2-a) of the Act provides for the revision of the record of rights, the respondent No. 3 could not resort to Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also distinguished the case of Baul Chand Sen v. Surish Chandra Sen, where the exercise of inherent powers was upheld due to the absence of a specific statutory provision for correcting records induced by fraud.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the trial court dated December 23, 1964, were set aside. The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in respect of case No. 124 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including the notice dated March 27, 1963. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs throughout.