GADADEAR JANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule, obtained on behalf of the bargadars, raises a short but interesting question, namely, whether the petitioners as bargadars are necessary parties in a proceeding started under section 5a of the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter sailed the Act) and the West Bengal estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules ). It is necessary to settle the matter of procedure that has got to be followed by the Estates Acquisition Tribunals in such matters. The facts are simple.

(2.) ON April 11, 1955 there was a deed of gift of certain lands by one Jogendra nath Kanji in favour of Sohora Jogendra Junior M. E. School (hereinafter sailed the School ). The date of the gift is within the prohibited period as mentioned in section 5a of the Act (i. e. , between May 5, 1953 and the date of vesting, though it was not admitted. It appears that on the initiation of the proceeding under section 5a of the Act, a notice was issued by the Revenue officer with a direction to serve a copy of the order on the transferor Jogendra and the transferee Satish, who is the secretary of the School. The order states the alleged fact of transfer exceeding 25 acres of agricultural land by the so-called intermediary within the prohibited period, the object being to increase the compensation and lastly about the reasons for believing that the transfer was not bonafide and the prima facie opinion formed on the same. These are the typical orders passed in most cases, which are printed, the blanks only being filled up to suit particular cases. There was a further direction in the order to issue notices on the said two persons fixing a date of hearing. They were also directed to appear with their witnesses and the evidence in proof of the fact that the aforesaid transfer was bonafide. On august 28, 1960 as neither the transferee Satish nor the transferor Jogen appeared, the Revenue Officer directed notices to be served again on the said secretary of the School, Satish and also on Jogen and this time also on "other concerned parties" to appear on August 30, 1960 which raised the complications. In pursuance of the said order it appear from the order sheet that notices were served on the Bargadars petitioners who appeared and the Revenue officer ultimately held that the transfer vas not bonafide. Consequently an order was passed that the properties sought to be transferred would vest in the State Government. Against the said order, an appeal was taken on behalf of the School under the provisions of section 5a (6) of the Act in which the State of West Bengal was impleaded as the sole respondent. The learned special Judge, Appellate Tribunal, allowed the appeal. The deed of gift being held genuine, and for consideration, was declared bonafide by the learned Judge. Against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, two bargadars. namely, Gadadhar Jana and Phani bhangi, petitioners herein, moved this court and obtained the instant Rule.

(3.) MR. Mukti Prosanna Mukherjee in support of the Rule contended, firstly, that his clients, the bargadars are necessary parties in the proceeding started under section 5a of the Act being persons interested in or affected by the transfer both under section 5a of the act and Rule 3a of the Rules. Secondly, he contended that as the petitioners were treated as parties both by the Revenue Officer and the transferee, the petitioners should also have been made parties before the Appellate Tribunal. Thirdly, he contended that if his clients are held to be parties to such a proceeding, then the order of the appellate Tribunal passed in their absence, on the face of it, is bad and not binding on the petitioners and is fit to be set aside. In any event, he prayed lastly for a re-hearing of the matter before the Appellate Tribunal.