HRIDAY KRISHNA PATRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though this Rule, which was obtained on 12th July, 1977, was made ready as regards service on 20th March, 1979, there has not either been any appearance entered on behalf of the respondents or any affidavit-in-opposition filed by them. At the time of the issue of the Rule, no interim order was granted, but, pursuant to the liberty as granted, prayer for necessary interim order having been made, on 5th Aug., 1977, an interim order of injunction was issued. At that time also nobody opposed the prayers.

(2.) It has been slated by the petitioners that one Gopal Patra, who died on 1972, had considerable landed properties and on 10th Aug., 1976, he was called upon to appear before the Revenue Officer, Barasat Settlement "C" Camp, respondent No. 5, by a notice dated 9th Aug., 1976, for hearing of Case No. 47(M)/72, in respect of the Return in Form No. 7A, which was filed on 5th Aug., 1972, under section 14T(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The return as aforesaid, was filed by Gopal Patra, while alive and accordingly, on receipt of the notice after his death, the heirs of Gopal Patra, since deceased, appeared in the proceedings. The petitioners have stated that thereafter, and on receipt of the intimation about the death of Gopal Patra, they were impleaded as p ies in the concerned proceedings and therein, they had represented that the lands as held, were within the ceiling limit as prescribed under the said Act, considering the extent and the number of the members of the family. It has been stated that the extent of the number of the members of the family as claimed, was also certified by the Anchal Prodhan and on the basis of the same and also on other evidence as adduced, the said respondent No. 5 was pleased to pass an order on 25th March, 1976, holding that no land belonging to the petitioners, would vest.

(3.) Thereafter, on 9th July, 1976, the said respondent No. 5 reopend the case, according to the petitioners, by way of review and an order under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was passed. Such order has been claimed to be inappropriate, without jurisdiction, void, irregular and bad. It was also claimed that the said Revenue Officer, respondent No. 5, was not the prescribed authority to act or exercise powers under section 151 as mentioned above.