DURGA DAS CHATTAPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the appeal is called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of the respondents. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the appellant.

(2.) The facts of case, briefly, are that the suit property is a land vested with the State of West Bengal and the plaintiff-appellant claimed to be landless cultivator having a homestead land adjacent to the suit property. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 had put the suit property to auction for long term settlement and fixed a certain amount towards salami and a certain amount towards rent and the said auction was held on 26.9.1969 openly and the plaintiff's bid was accepted by the defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid the salami and the rent for the suit property and the possession of the suit property was delivered in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of assurance the defendant No. 2 failed to issue a 'patta' in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff and ultimately the local Tahasildar threatened the plaintiff with dispossession from the suit property and, thus, the plaintiff filed the suit concerned.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 i.e. the State of West Bengal contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The defendant No. 1 took the stand that the plaintiff and his family members possessed more lands than that which is stated in the plaint and the plaintiff is a school teacher. The defendant No. 1 also denied that the possession of the suit land was delivered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 also took the stand that there was no provision for enforcing the Government to settle the lands to the adjacent owner. The said suit came up for hearing and the learned Trial Court decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant by declaring the plaintiff's tenancy right in respect of the suit land and also the plaintiff's possession of the suit land was confirmed. The learned Trial Court restrained the defendants by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land.