LAWS(CAL)-2021-3-51

CHABI RANI PAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On March 03, 2021
Chabi Rani Pal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 13, 2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated November 29, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3rd Court at Burdwan dismissing the Title Suit No. 147 of 1994.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was filed by one Biseswar Pal, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff against the State of West Bengal and the Revenue Officer, Guskara, Burdwan, impleading his two sons namely Nemai Chandra Paul and Brojo Nath Paul as Proforma Defendants.

(3.) It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff owned total 12.80 acres of land as described in schedule "A" of the plaint. In the year 1968, the said Biseswar (the plaintiff) and his wife Gayatri, by an oral family settlement, separated the said two sons from the family and transferred the property described in the Schedule-B to the plaint. A memorandum was also prepared to that effect. After such separation the family of the plaintiff comprised of six members: Biseswar himself, his wife and four daughters. As per Section 14M of West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (Land Reforms Act for short) the plaintiff was entitled to retain 14.52 (12.36+1.40 + .76) acres of agricultural lands in irrigated area. Gayatri Bala, expired before 1971 and the plaintiff married for the second time. From his second wife his son, Prosanto, and .daughter, Chandana, were born. The concerned Revenue Officer, who had been impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit, started a suo motu case in 1994 against the plaintiff and without giving him any opportunity of being heard, vested the agricultural lands as mentioned in the Schedule "C" of the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had no land in excess of ceiling limit and the Revenue Officer, by treating the 'B' Schedule lands as the lands of the plaintiff, had passed the vesting order.