GOSTHA BEHARI DAS Vs. JUNIOR LAND REFORMS OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rule, was obtained with the corresponding interim order for stay of operation of the order as impeached, on 20th Dec., 1976 and even though the Rule was made ready as regards service on 18th June, 1981 and an appearance was entered for the Respondents as indicated above, at the time of hearing of the same, nobody either appeared, or opposed the prayers as made or even asked for opportunities to file any return to the Rule. It should be noted that the Rule, for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 3rd Aug., 1979, has been discharged against Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, Sarbashree Biraj Mohan Das and Tamradhawaj Mallick and it was contended by Mr. Maity that such discharge of the Rule, will have no adverse effect to the maintainability of the same or the determinations to be made.

(2.) It has been stated that the father of the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Chandra Das (since deceased) was a recorded Bargadar, in respect of Plot No. 1740, measuring '64 acres of Khatian No. 260 of Mouza Barbari, Police Station Sutahata, Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) under Respondent No. 9, Shri Iswar Damodar Jew Thakur and it was their specific averments that the concerned record-of-rights was finally published. It has also been claimed that as per family agreement, on the death of the said Shri Ramesh Chandra Das, the petitioner No. 1 Shri Gostha Behari Das, was determined or nominated and elected to be the Bargadar and he continued the cultivation of the said lands. It has been alleged that as such, petitioner No. 2, Shri Binod Behari Das had or has no connection in respect of them. It has also been alleged that the petitioner No. 1, as such, continued cultivation and the Respondent No. 9, taking advantage of the death of Ramesh Chandra Das, the father, tried to evict the petitioners from their right of or as Bargadar, with the help of and connivance with one Shri Arjun Chandra Ghose, Respondent No. 8. This Respondent No. 8, according to the petitioner, threatend to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the said lands by the petitioners and in fact, on or about 19th July, 1976, he took away the plough and other articles and belongings of the petitioners and as such, proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, was duly filed and initiated against him in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk. It has been alleged that at that the said Respondent No. 8, finding no other alternative, initiated a false case before the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Respondent No. 1, on 20th July, 1976, for recording his name as a Bargadar in respect of the said lands, alleging falsely that he had cultivated them for the last 22/23 years. Such proceeding was registered as No. 58(B.R.) of 1976-77. It has been claimed by the petitioners that their father was in possession of the said lands by delivering owner's share of produce to the Respondent No. 9, apart from making other relevant and necessary payments to the State. It has been claimed that thereafter, there was an enquiry by the Circle Inspector concerned, Respondent No. 2 and it was found and established in that enquiry that 2/3rd of the said lands, measuring more or less '43 acres, was cultivated by the petitioners and '21 acres was cultivated by Respondent No. 8. The petitioners have alleged that the Respondent, J.L.R.O., with a biased and preconceived mind and notion, made the relevant report in the 144 proceedings as mentioned above.

(3.) It has been stated that thereafter, the Respondent, J.L.R.O. by his order dated 25th Oct., 1976, observed that as the Block Level Land Reforms Advisory Committee (herein after referred to as the said Committee), found the said lands were cultivated by Respondent No. 8, even though the Record-of-Rights stood in the name of the father of the petitioners, for the year under consideration 1/3rd portion of the North Eastern side was cultivated by the Respondent No. 8, amongst some other portions of the said lands as mentioned in the petition. The said Respondent No. 8, was also found to be the Bargadar in respect of the lands in question and accordingly directed his name to be recorded as such in the relevant records. The petitioners categorically claimed and contended that their father was the recorded Bargadar and since the relevant records establishing such fact were finally published in terms of the provisions of section 44(4) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, so the presumptions attached to them unless duly rebutted must and should prevail. It was contended that the Respondent No. 1. J.L.R.O. was not specially empowered under section 50 of the said Act, making provisions for maintenance of the record-of-rights.