DHARAM NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 2nd July, 2019 the present Writ petition has been assigned before me inasmuch as there has been a difference of opinion of the Hon'ble Judges constituting Division Bench. In view of such assignment this matter was taken up to form an opinion so as to constitute a majority view in the matter. The writ petition is against an order dated 5th October, 2016 whereby the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissed petitioner's application for review of its earlier order dated 21.01.2013. The said order dated 21.03.2013 was passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2050 of 2012 whereby the petitioner challenged vesting of his land and prayed for recording his name as rayat on the strength of uninterrupted long possession, which was recorded as 'jor dang'.

(2.) By an order dated 21.03.2013 the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim for being recorded as a rayat in recognition of an order dated 04.05.1962 under Section 44(3) in Estate Acquisition Appeal No. 271/1961, whereby he was recorded with the remark "Jor-dang" status in favour of his predecessor over the land in question. The Tribunal while rejecting the said application of the petitioner held that such recording could not be done having regard to the admitted fact that the land in question stood vested to the State of West Bengal and if the petitioner made allegation that the same was done behind his back he ought to have challenged the order of vesting under the statute and if they were interested to get the details of the vesting they ought to apply before the appropriate authority namely, BLLRO concerned who would furnish all the details regarding the suit lands. It was also held that the petitioner was not a rayat and could not have a rayati status simply on the basis of "Anomoti Dang" noting / 'Jor-dang' noting over the said land. It was suggested that if the petitioner liked he would apply to the government for a long term lease over the suit property. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21.03.2013 a writ petition being W.P.L.R.T. No. 78 of 2013 was filed and the same was disposed of by an order dated 08.04.2013 by the Bench presided over by Justice Girish Chandra Gupta (as His Lordship then was). While disposing of the said writ petition the Hon'ble Division Bench noted that the first contention raised before the Tribunal regarding vesting which was allegedly made behind the back of the petitioner, the Tribunal took care to direct the concerned BLLRO to furnish details of such vesting of the land and the petitioner since was granted liberty to obtain particulars of vesting he would be at liberty to do so. So far the second grievance of the petitioner that although, a Government memo was annexed to the original application which speaks of recording of one's name as rayat if he has got the status of 'Jor-dang' and since the Tribunal did not consider the said Government memo, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for limited purpose to draw attention of the Tribunal to the said internal memo dated 19th September, 1994 and for re-consideration thereof. In pursuance of such liberty the petitioner filed an application for review before the Tribunal and while rejecting the same passed the order impugned on 5th October, 2016.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the order of vesting the petitioner being in possession of the building it could not have vested to the estate by operation of Section 4 & 5 of the Estate Acquisition Act and is entitled to retain the land under Section 6(5) of the said Act. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that even if no option for retention is filed the land could not automatically vest and such vesting could not be operative until and unless notice under Section 10(2) had been issued by the State. He further submitted that since his client's name was recorded as 'Jor-dang' over a considerable period in excess of 12 years his long possession over the suit land has been perfected and ripened into a title which cannot be disturbed by the State rather he should be recognized as a rayat by shifting his name from Column-23 to first page of the Record-of-Rights and in support of his continuous long possession he submitted that at the instance of a third party a suit was instituted in respect of the self-same land being Title Suit No. 65 of 1981 against the State where State admitted that the petitioner was in forcible possession for over 12 years and in the written statement admitted that Banka Singh, the predecessor of present petitioner had been recorded in the R.S. Record-of-Rights as in 'adverse possession'.