NARAYAN CHANDRA KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though, this Rule, which was obtained on 23rd Dec. 1977, with the corresponding interim order for maintaining of status quo, initially for a limited period and thereafter, the same was extended, was made ready as regards service, none excepting Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared. In fact, there has been no affidavit in opposition, filed In the instant Rule. The Rule as mentioned above was obtained against an order made on 27th Sept. 1977, by the Revenue Officer, Respondent No. 2. in a proceeding being Case No. 93/77, under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1855 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and more particularly under section 14T of the same The petitioner has claimed to be the owner of 6.16 acres of lands and he has also stated to have a family consisting of 6 members at the relevant time. He has stated that on or about 25th Aug. 1977, a notice was issued by the Revenue Officer concerned and served on him, whereby he was informed that the said Revenue officer would start a proceeding for determination of the ceiling limit of his holdings. The petitioner has further claimed that in pursuance of the said notice, he duly entered Into the proceedings and attended the same and contended inter alia amongst others, that the proceedings as initiated was without jurisdiction, Inappropriate, void, arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) The determinations as mentioned above, were made by the impugned order on 27th Sept. 1979 and in this proceedings, the petitioner has claimed such determinations to have been made without considering his submissions and more particularly to the effect that lands belonging to strangers have been added to the land ceilings or holdings of the petitioner He has specifically stated that the lands of Gobinda Chandra Kundu, Respondent No. 4, and those of Smt Tulshi Bala Das, Respondent No. 5 were added in the manner as mentioned hereinbefore and the determinations as Impeached, were made by the authority concerned, without considering the provisions of the said Act. As such, the petitioner has claimed that he was not given duly, the benefits of section 14M(2), which deals with ceiling areas and particularly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), where. In the family of a Raiyat, (here are mere Raiyats than one, the ceiling area for the Raiyat, together with the ceiling area of all other Raiyats in the family shell not, in any case, exceed, (a) where the number of members of such family does exceed 55.00 standard hectors; and (b) where such number exceed 5,5.00 standard hectors, plus 0.50 standard hectors for each members in excess of 5, so, however, that the aggregate of the ceiling area shall not, In any case, exceed 7.00 standard hectors. These apart, the petitioner, has also claimed that lands belonging to one Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, have also been included with these of his lands by the Revenue Officer concerned, apart from the fact, that lands belonging to one Kartlck Chandra Roy. In the same and similar manner, have been Included and tacked with his lands. The particulars of the lands of all the persons as mentioned above, including Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, have been mentioned in the petition.

(3.) As mentioned above, it was the categorical case of the petitioner that the Revenue Officer concerned, had decided the case without duly considering the previsions of the said Act and without considering the fact that on 15th Feb. 1971 when Chapter II B, consisting of section 14J to 14Y was Inserted by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (President's Act III of 1971) and then by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (West Bengal Act XII of 1972) with retrospective effect, the number of the members of the petitioner's family was six and as such, under the law, the said officer had no jurisdiction, competence or authority to pass an order of vesting of the lands belonging to the petitioner. Such being the position, the petitioner claimed the order of vesting as made, to be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and void also it was claimed by him that by ticking the lands belonging to others and thereby increasing the quantity of the lands held by him, the Revenue Officer concerned had also acted Inappropriately and such action on his part was not bonafide. It was the specific allegations of the petitioner that the officer concerned had failed to appreciate that under the laws of the land, he was entitled to retain lands measuring about 5.50 standard hectors, which would be equivalent to 13.60 acres and in not doing so or allowing such retention, the officer concerned had further acted Illegally.