BINOY KUMAR SAHA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER MALDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is against an order of a Revenue Officer under Section 47 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act directing plots Nos. 215 and 218 of mouza Ghansahar amongst other plots to be recorded as vested in the State.

(2.) One Bimal Krishna Sanyal, opposite party No. 5, was the owner of these two plots. He was an intermediary within the meaning of the Act. He exercised option under Section 6 (5) of the Act, submitted a 'B' Form statement and he retained plots Nos. 215 and 218. Plott No. 215 has been recorded as a tank with an area of 3.71 acres and plot No. 218 has been recorded as the bank of the tank with an area of 10.37 acres. Some time in 1963 opposite party No. 5 sold these two plots to the petitioners. Some time in 1969 the Revenue Officer started the instant proceeding under Section 47 of the Act but no notice was served on the Petitioners and the instant order was made by the Revenue Officer on May 2, 1969 in the absence of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application but since the matter had already been disposed of no action was taken thereon. Thereafter the petitioners obtained this Rule,

(3.) I have said that plot No. 215 is the tank and plot No. 218 is the bank of the tank. These are not agricultural lands. Obviously, opposite party No. 5 retained these as tank fishery. Mr. Roy Chowdhury who appears for the State submits that the settlement records shows that the water of the tank was used for irrigation purpose and so. these two plots should be held to be agricultural lands within the meaning of the Act This argument cannot be accepted. Agricultural land means land ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture and horticulture and including such land, notwithstanding that it may be lying fallow for the time being. The tank is obviously not used for purposes of agriculture or horticulture. This may be used for pisciculture; the water may be used for drinking purpose or other purposes and even for irrigation purposes, but that does not make it an agricultural land. The intermediary, who was the owner of these two plots, retained it and included it in the 'B' Form statement submitted by him and thereafter he sold it to the petitioners. So. there is no justification for the Revenue Officer for directing that these two plots should be recorded as vested in the State.