MADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India made by the petitioners is directed against the order dated September 23, 1987 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore) in Revenue Appeal No.2 L.R. of 1986.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under :- In suo motu proceedings under section 44(2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (for short the Act), the Revenue Officer, Settlement Camp, India, Kharagpur passed an order on October 6, 1980 declaring that, several plots of lands having an area of more than 58 acres were the excess, lands of the owners being beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under that Act and accordingly treated the said lands as vested lands of the State of West Bengal. Thereafter pattas were granted by the concerned authority of the State Government purporting to make raiyati settlement of the said lands in favour of the petitioners and 64 others on October 13, 1980. The opposite party No.5 and several others claiming to be the owners of the aforesaid lands on the strength of purchase by several Sale Deeds preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal appointed under section 55(2) of the Act against the order of the Revenue Officer passed on October 6, 1980 alleging inter alia that notices of the proceedings initiated under section 44(2A) were not served upon them.. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals so preferred, set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer and remanded the proceedings to the Revenue Officer for fresh hearing and decision. Thereafter some of the owners including the opposite party No.5 made application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar (South) Midnapore being annulment case No.1 of 1984-85 praying for annulment of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners and others. By an order dated October 29, 1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer annulled the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner and others holding that the officers of the Revenue Department had no authority to grant pattas since the order of vesting of the lands in question was held to be void by the learned Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners and some others thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore) being Revenue Appeal No.2 L.R. of 1986 against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed on October 29, 1985 in the aforesaid patta Annulment Case. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, by the impugned order dated September 23, 1987 Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have made the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Dipak Chowdhury the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not complied with by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled inasmuch as notices of the annulment case were not served upon the petitioners and that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before the pattas were cancelled Mr. R. N. Bag, the learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 5 has submitted that after the order was passed by the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under section 44(2A) of the Act, no possession was in fact taken by the Government. He has further pointed out that the order treating the lands as vested lands in suo motu proceedings under section 44(2A) of the Act having been set aside, the impugned pattas, granted in favour of the petitioners were void and as such the Sub-Divisional Officer was quite competent to cancel the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Chowdhury the learned Advocate for the petitioners has in this connection pointed out that after remand the Revenue Officer again passed an order treating the said lands as vested lands of the Government of West Bengal and in that view of the matter the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the pattas was manifestly erroneous.