KRISHNA NARAYAN DAS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who have claimed to be the owners of the lands (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), as involved in the order, of requisition (hereinafter referred to as the said order), under Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), obtained this Rule oh 9th Aug. 1977. At the time of the issue of the Rule, no interim order was granted, but liberty was given, to ask for appropriate interim order, on notice to the other side and although such prayer for interim order was made, the same was not entertained. The respective particulars of the petitioners, whereby they entered into and possessed their shares in the said lands and so also the names of their respective vendors have been duly disclosed in the petition.

(2.) It has also been stated that the purchase of petitioner No. 3, Sri Binapani Dasi from her vendor was in respect of a tank measuring more or less .93 acre in Plot No. 40 and the bank of the tank along with garden measuring more or less .36 acre in Plot No. 36/1492. That apart, one Banka Behari Rajak, father of petitioner No. 4, Sm. Jyotsna Dasi and that also of the petitioner No. 2 Kamal Krishna Rajak, possessed the said tank as a lessee. It has in short been stated and claimed that after the purchase as aforesaid, the petitioners have been occupying the said tank, bank of the same and the garden and have reared fish. It has been stated, further that the tank in question, has been used and utilised for pisciculture or fishing and so also the bank of the same, for operations attached to the same. The petitioners have stated that the tank would be about .93 acre and the bank of the same would be about 1.20 acres, thus the total area of the tank and the bank of the same would come to about 2.13 acres. It has been stated by the petitioners that the tank in question was not used for purposes other than what has been mentioned above and more particularly for domestic and irrigation purposes and the tank In question was not adjoining to any homestead. The petitioners categorically claimed that the tank in question would be a fishery in terms of the definition in Section 2 (3) of the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said 1965 Act), which defines "Fishery", as any land whereon water is confined naturally or artificially whether periodically or throughout the year for pisciculture or for fishing and includes a 'tank' 'fishery' as defined in the Explanation to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, as also the fish in such fishery or 'tank-fishery', but does not include a tank not exceeding one acre in area adjoining a homestead and used for purposes of irrigation or domestic purposes:

(3.) It was the case of the petitioners that on or about 12th Jan. 1977, they received notices signed by the respondent authorities concerned as issued under Section 3 (1) of the said Act, intimating the purpose of the requisition, to be for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, viz. for providing proper facilities for transport/ communication/irrigation/drainage, for acquisition for stock yard offices and go-downs (PWD) Roads Department at Suri, in the District of Birbhum. It has been alleged by the petitioners that such requisition was not bona fide and in fact the same was made in a mala fide way, manner and intention or at the machination of Shri S. K. Mondal, Executive Engineer, PWD Roads, Respondent No. 4, who had the idea and intention to enjoy the fish as grown by the petitioners. In fact, it has been alleged, at least on two given dates, the said Respondent No. 4, caught fish by engaging his men from the tank of Shri Banku Behari Rajak, for which General diary entries have been lodged. That apart, it was claimed by the said Banku Behari Rajak, that there was fish worth about Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- in the tank.