PROBODH CHANDRA SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule, with the corresponding interim order, was obtained on 8th Dec. 1976, challenging the legality, validity or otherwise of the judgment and orders passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Bisnupur, Respondent No. 2, in Case No. 5, B. C. A. of 1974 and challenging further, all steps as taken thereunder. It has been stated that lands comprised in Dag No. 5055 in Khatian No. 1869, of Mouza Jomkuri, in the District of Bankura, measuring more or less 2.21 acres (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), belonged to and was possessed in Khas by one Shri Subol Chandra Chowdhury, son of late Ramsaday Chowdhury. It has been stated by the petitioner that prior thereto, there had never been any person under the said Shri Subol Chandra Chowdhury, who acted or could claim as a Bargadar within the meaning of section 2(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and it was the further case of the petitioner that in the relevant records, there was never any note or entry in respect of a Bargadar. The petitioner had further stated that he, for the first time, in or about the year 1375 B. S., approached the said Shri Subol Chandra Chowdhury, for being engaged as a Bargadar, in respect of the said lands and the said Shri Chowdhury having agreed, the petitioner cultivated the said lands as Baragadar for the years 1375 and 1376 B.S., and he delivered the landlord's share to the said Shri Chowdhury, against receipts duly granted. It has also been stated that thereafter, on or about 21st March 1970, the petitioner, by Registered Deed of Sale, purchased the said Lands from said Shri Chowdhury for valuable consideration. He has also claimed himself to be a person of the locality, having personal knowledge "'about khas cultivation of the said lands. It was the case of the petitioner that after such purchase, he cultivated the said lands in Khas and was in uninterrupted possession of them.

(2.) It has been alleged that while in such possession, the petitioner was surprised to receive the notice dated 1st June 1970, as issued from the office of the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sonamukhi, Bankura, in connection with his right to possess and cultivate the said lands. By the said notice, the petitioner was inter alia intimated that a hearing would be held on 8th June 1970, and he was directed to be present, with necessary evidence and records, in support of his case. This notice, has been claimed by the petitioner to be illegal, vague, void and without jurisdiction, as according to him, under the provisions of the said Act, there was no scope for the issue of such vague and indefinite notice and furthermore, as the conditions precedent for adjudicating a dispute under the said Act. had not been followed or complied with. It has also been stated that along with concerned notice, no copy of the application, on the basis whereof, the said notice was issued, was served. It has of course, been stated by the petitioner that with great hardship, he could obtain the copy of the concerned application which was filed by Respondent No. 6 7 and 8 and such application, on a reference, would appear to have been addressed to the Junior land Reforms Officer, Sonamukhi, who had no jurisdiction to determine the same.

(3.) The officer concerned, in his turn, authorised the Circle Inspector concerned, to enquire into the matter and report. The said Circle Inspector, according to the petitioner, held an enquiry and submitted a report, slating that from the evidence adduced, he was of the opinion and he believed that the petitioner was in possession in 1375 and 1376 B. S. and still he was in such possession. It was the case of "petitioner that the Junior Land Reforms officer concerned, after serving notice on both the parties and hearing them, directed that Probodh Chandra Samanta, the petitioner herein, would cultivate the said lands as usual in 1377 B. S. From such determination, one of the adversaries of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sonamukhi, being B.C. Appeal No. 3 of 1970-71 and according to the petitioner, the said Tribunal, on an erroneous view of law and acting with material irregularity, remanded back the case to the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned, for fresh hearing and action in accordance with law. Such order of remand in appeal, has also been claimed by the petitioner to be Illegal, bad and without jurisdiction and according to the petitioner, the Tribunal concerned, should have summarily rejected the appeal, as being not maintainable.