TARAPADA MAHATO Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A piquant situation has arisen in course of hearing when the order passed by the Additional District Judge in Estate Acquisition Appeal No. 27 of 1974 on July 23, 2012, is challenged before the West Bengal Land reforms and Tenancy Tribunal who assumed jurisdiction as an appellate authority and passed the impugned order. Before the aforesaid point is elaborated, the undisputed facts are required to be adumbrated. The parties are litigating over their respective rights in respect of the land being the subject matter of dispute since 1973. Originally the subject property belongs to one Ghosto Khatua and devolved upon his widow after his death as sole heir i.e. Smt. Monorama Khatua. Both the husband and wife were in actual physical possession of the property and the said widow subsequently transferred the subject land to one Kishori Mohan Bandyopadhyay by dint of four separate registered Kobalas on divergent dates in the year 1967-68. Subsequently the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicants purchased the subject property from the said Kishori Mohan Bandopadhyay by a registered sale deed executed on February 20, 1973 for valuable consideration and acquired the right, title and interest therein. Simultaneously with the execution and registration of the said sale deed the predecessor-in-interest of the present writ-petitioner no. 1 was put in possession by his vendor which he received from the said Manorama Khatua.

(2.) The dispute started when the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents namely Shashank Shekhar Roy, Gunadhar Roy and Dibakar Roy made an application before the authority for recording their names as 'Bargadars' in respect of a subject land and on the basis thereof an Objection Case No. 7404 of 1973, was initiated under Sec. 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953'). The parties are not ad idem on the issue whether the said Objection Case was initiated on the basis of an application filed by the aforesaid persons claiming as 'Bargadars' or a suo motu proceeding was initiated by Revenue Officer under the aforesaid provision of the Act of 1953.

(3.) Be that as it may, the said proceeding was disposed of on April 30, 1973 on the notice of the said Manorama Khatua who consented for revision in the record of rights and recording of the names of the aforesaid persons as 'Bargadars'. Since the said Monorama Khatua divested her right, title and interest in respect of the subject land prior to the initiation of the said Objection Case under Sec. 44(2a) of the Act of 1953 and the moment it came to the notice, the predecessor of the present writ-petitioners made an application for review of an order dated April 30, 1973 passed in the said Objection Case No. 7404 of 1973 upon recording such consent of the said Monorama Khatua. The Revenue Officer i.e. the Assistant Settlement Officer Camp 'B' at Anandabhaban, allowed the application for review and recalled the order passed in favour of the aforesaid persons being the predecessor-ininterest of the private respondents. The order allowing an application for review was challenged by filing an Appeal being number 66 of 1973 under Sec. 44 (3) of the Act of 1953 before the District Judge, Medinipur which was eventually allowed by a judgment and order dated August 1, 1974 solely on the ground that the said authority did not have any power or jurisdiction to review its earlier order. The moment the predecessor-in-interest of the said petitioners realized that the power of review is not vested upon the said authority, the challenge was made to an original order by filing an Estate Acquisition Appeal No. 27 of 1974 before the learned District Judge, Medinipur accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge, Medinipur dismissed the application for condonation of delay on August 20, 1974 and the same order was assailed before this Court in C.R. No. 5574 (W) of 1974. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ-petition upholding the order of the District Judge by which an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.