BASUDEB GUCHAIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Despite our direction no affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 6.

(2.) Assailing the order dated 18th January, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 2886 of 2004 (LRTT) this writ application has been filed.

(3.) Learned Tribunal below dismissed the original application wherein the notice issued by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tamluk -II under section 7 of he West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen, 1975 being West Bengal Act No. 47 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 47 of 1975) under challenge. It is a case of the writ petitioner as it appears from the writ application herein different documents have been annexed that an application by respondent No. 6 was filed seeking acquisition of land being LR Plot No. 2180 measuring.07 decimal recorded as bastu due to occupation of the said land by constructing his residence. This application was heard by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tamluk-II giving proper opportunity of hearing to the present writ petitioner. The said Revenue Officer on the basis of the enquiry report passed the order to this effect "applicant's name may be recorded as in permissive possession upon 7.5 dec. land in khaitan No. 2077". This order was passed on 5th October, 2001 in H.S. (Homestead) Case No. 5 of 2001. Assailing the said order writ petitioner preferred a dispute under section 9 of the said Act before the Collector/Additional District Magistrate, Medinipur at Tamluk which was registered as Appeal No. 163 (T)/2001 dated 18th December, 2001. While disposing of the issue namely the said dispute under "Section 9, which has been termed as Appeal Case, the hearing officer came to a finding that recording of name of present respondent No.6 as Anumati Dakhaldar on the land in question on disposing of his application under the said West Bengal Act 47 of 1975, was erroneous, as the respondent No. 6 was legally entitled to have the relief of acquisition of land by the State for the purpose of settling the land to respondent No. 6 as raiyat. This order was passed on 14th January, 2004 by the said authority. The ordering portion reads such: