GOPAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. BHAGCHAS OFFICERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS, even inspite of the due service of the Rule which was made ready as regards service on 29th' August 1977, nobody appeared for the State of West bengal or their authorities and I felt the need and assistance of some learned Advocate, who is conversant with the point as mentioned hereafter, on 14th August, 1980, i. e. during the course of the hearing of the case, I requested Mr. Susanta Kumar Kundu, to appear as Amicus Curiae and I must have it on record, the appreciation for the help and assistance which Mr. Kundu has rendered. The point of controversy in the instant case related to the character of the bhagchas officer viz. whether they are revenue Officer or Settlement Officers. It may be mentioned that in the West Bengal land Reforms Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) there is no definition of Bhagchas Officers.

(2.) THE petitioner has claimed that the lands as mentioned in the petition, at all material times belonged to him. It is also his case that those lands have been duly recorded in his name in the R. S. records and he had no Bargadar. In fact, the lands as involved are his has lands and he has cultivated them by his own men and on due payment and supply of the necessary implements and materials. It is also his case, that one Mahatab Mondal, while alive, used to cultivate the lands initially, on execution of a Kabulayat which was dated 17th december, 1939. Such execution was in favour of Hemangini Debi, the mother of the petitioner. But thereafter, the lands were made khas by virtue of an auction purchase on 12th June, 1952, in' Rent Suit no. 967 of 1948, of the learned Second munsif's Court. Rampurhat, Birbhum. The petitioner has stated that by virtue of such purchase, he took possession through court on 10th July 1954 and since then, he is possessing and enjoying the lands, in the manner as mentioned above.

(3.) IT is the allegation of the petitioner that at the instance and instigation of the bhagchas Officer, Nalhati-ll, Birbhum, respondent no. 1, some persons created trouble and problems by making false claims as Bargadars of the lands in question and he was surprised to receive a notice dated 9th August 1976 issued by the said Respondent No. 1, purporting to initiate a proceeding, being case No. 32 of 1976. The petitioner has further alleged that the concerned notice has not even disclosed the relevant provisions of the said Act under which the same was issued. It is of course true that with the said notice, a copy of the application, was sent. The petitioner, on a reference to that application has stated that the allegations against him were that he was attempting or taking steps to evict the Bargadars in question, who are Respondent Nos. 5 to 11. There was a prayer in that application, for recording the names of these Bargadars.