ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA Vs. PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, the judgment dated July 15, 1986 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 1691-92 of 1985 arising out of applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment dated April 8, 1985 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Diamond Harbour in RAL Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1983, is under challenge.

(2.) There is no dispute that one Kamini Mohan Gayen was the owner of the lands in dispute. On June 1, 1968, the said Kamini Mohan Gayen had sold 0.60 cent of land to Achutananda Baidya the appellant in these appeals. The said Kamini Mohan Gayen also sold .60 cent of land on July 1, 1968 to one Sunil Kumar Mondal by a registered sale deed. The appellant Achutananda Baidya subsequently purchased the said 0.60 cent of land from Sunil Kumar Mondal. The successor in interest of Kamini Mohan Gayen, namely, the respondents in these appeals made application under Section 4 (1) of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Special Officer constituted under the Act for restoration of the said 66 decimals of land and 60 decimals of land which had been transferred by Kamini Mohan Gayen on June 1, 1968 and July 1, 1968. It may be stated here the under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, if the transfer in question had been made after the expiry of the year 1967 with an agreement written or oral for reconveyance of the land to the transferor, the transferor may within ten years from the date of commencement of the Act may make an application in prescribed manner to the Special Officer having jurisdiction in the area in which the land transferred was situated for restoration of such land to him. Under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, the transferor may also make an application before the Special Officer for restoration of the alienated land if the transfer of the said land was made after the expiry of the year 1967 if the transferor was in need of money for maintenance of himself and family or for meeting the cost of cultivation.

(3.) In the application for restoration of the said lands it was contended by the respondents that their predecessor-in-interest Kamini Mohan Gayen was in need of money for the maintenance of his family and in order to procure money to give his daughter in marriage, he had to sell the said lands by the aforesaid registered deeds of sale under distress. It was also contended that the transferor and the transferee entered into oral agreement to reconvey the said land to the transferor.