HRIDAY BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has claimed to be a Bargadar of about 144 acres of lands, recorded in Plot Nos. 793 and 794, appertaining to Khatain No. 173 of Mouza Deulbari Debipur, J L. No 158, under Police Station Kultali, District 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) Ha has stated that the total area of lands covered by the plots as mentioned above was 2 88 acres, of which he was a Bargadar In respect of the said lands It was his case that the lands in question belonged to Parichu Mondal since deceased and he has been cultivating as Bargadar, the said lands, for about 24/25 years. He has also stated that Panchu Mondal, during his life time, used to realise the owner's share for the said lands from him and on his death, his widow, Smt. Mithu Mondal, Respondent No. 5, who has inherited the said lands, is also possessing the same It has further been stated by the petitioner that on the death of the erstwhile owner, the said Respondent No. 5, has been paying rent for the entire lands and she has also been receiving owner's share of produce for the said lands from the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner" that such Barga cultivation of the said lands by him, was and is known to all concerned, including Respondent No.4, Smt. Promila Mondal, and she never objected to such cultivation of the said lands by the petitioner and also to the realisation of owner's share as mentioned above, by Smt. Mithu Mondal, Respondent No. 5. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner has been cultivating the said lands as Bar gadar, openly and on due assertion of his rights and that too without any objection or obstruction from anybody.

(2.) Even inspite of the above the petitioner has claimed, that to his utter surprise, he was served with a notice dated 9th July 1981, as in Annexure 'C' whereby the Officer-in-Charge, Kultali Police Station, Respondent No. 2, has required him, along with Sarba-sree Uday Biswas and Sundar Biswas and so also Smt. Kali Biswas, not to cultivate the said lands until and unless and enquiry initiated on the basis of a complaint of illegal cultivation, filed by the Respondent No. 4, Smt. Pro mila Mondal, by the Junior Land Re-forms Officer, Respondent No. 3, was completed and over. The petitioner has stated that he was not aware of any such enquiry as mentioned in the notice and to be made by the officer concerned and that apart, he was not also aware of any allegation, said to have been made by the said Smt. Promila Mondal. It was his case that no copy of the concerned allegations was served upon him and he was also not been served with any notice from the Junior Land Reforms officer concerned. These apart, the petitioner has stated that he was not and still he is not aware of any Civil or Criminal Proceedings, initiated or taken in respect of the said lands and his Barga right over those lands, has not been terminated by any appropriate authority under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. It was also stated by him that no restraint order has been issued, in terms of the provisions of that Act.

(3.) It was the further case of the petitioner that on receipt of the notice as mentioned above, on or about 14th July 1981, he met the Officer-in-Charge, Kultali Police Station, Respondent No 2 and apprised him of his Barga right, over the said lands and the other defence as mentioned hereinbefore. It was the further case of the petitioner that he duly pointed out to the officer concerned, that he was cultivating the said lands as Bargadar, being appropriately recognised by the owner, who, as mentioned hereinbefore, had accepted the Bhag share. It has been alleged that even on such due and appropriate facts being made available to the officer concerned, he paid no heed to the claims of the petitioner and declined to withdraw the impugned notice, which he also made it clear, was issued in terms of the directions received from the Junior Land Reforms Officer concerned, being Respondent No.3. It was the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, on 17th July 1981, he met the said Respondent No. 3, for the purpose of ascertaining the reasons from him for the notice, which was issued by the Respondent No. 2, under his orders or directions. The petitioner has also stated that he also made the facts as mentioned above, known to the said Respondent No. 3 and further, wanted to know the allegations, if any, said to have been made by the said Smt. Promila Mondal Respondent No 4, against him and also to supply him a copy of such allegations. It was further alleged that compliance to such request was not met. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the junior Land Reforms officer. Respondent No. 3, on the enquiry as mentioned. above, gave a different version and to the effect that the Officer-in-Charge, Kultali Police Station, Respondent No. 2, who had asked the Respondent No. 3, J.L.R.O. to hold an enquiry, into the cultivation of the said lands and to report. In view of the circumstances as disclosed hereinbefore, it was the claim of the petitioner that he was at a fix and was not in a position to know the correct state of affairs and he has been seriously prejudiced, apart from the fact that he has suffered irreparable loss and injury, as the notice in Annexure-'C' as mentioned above, which was neither legal nor valid or authorised. was sought to be given effect, to or acted upon. It was the further case of the petitioner that the Respondents and each of them, had acted illegally and mala fide in issuing the said notice and thus depriving the petitioner of his lawful rights and avocation, without any sanction of law. That apart, it was claimed that the Officer-in-Charge, Kultali Police Station and the J.L.R.O. concerned, was acting in collusion with the Respondent, Promila Mondal, with the purpose and intention of depriving him, of the fruits of the said lands and to disposes him therefrom without due process of law, apart from, contending that the Respondents were acting of have acted illegally and without jurisdiction, in the matter of issuing the impugned notice and thereby to restrain the addressees therein, to go upon the lands. It was also claimed that such action, was unilateral and was bad and void, as the same was sought to be taken without due opportunities to the petitioner.