MUKTIPADA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five rules which were issued on five petitions under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution are heard together as they involve common questions of law. Facts are all same or similar. The first petitioner in each of these cases is the son of the second petitioner and the second petitioner is the same person in all these cases.

(2.) The petitioners in these rules are challenging notices dated October 24, 1968 purported to have been issued in a proceeding started suo motu by the Revenue Officer under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the proceedings started thereon. Notices are the same in all the five cases except as to the number of the proceedings and plots involved.

(3.) The petitioners' case in each of these rules shortly is that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the land set out in paragraph 5 of the petition and that his name had been duly recorded in the finally published record of rights accordingly. That on October 24, 1968 a notice purported to be one under Section 57 read with Section 44 (2a) of the said Act was issued by the Revenue Officer; the notice does neither disclose unambiguously the purpose nor does it assign any reason or ground whatsoever. Petitioners in each of the cases were served with such a notice. Being aggrieved by such notice and the proceedings initiated thereon they have moved this Court with the above writ petition and are seeking to have those notices as also the proceedings based thereon quashed by this Court.