GAYATRI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that her husband (since deceased) was a bargadar in respect of certain plots of land and that during his lifetime, there was no dispute in respect of cultivation thereof. It is further claimed that after the husband of the petitioner passed away in 2005, she started cultivating the land as bargadar, which is a heritable right in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It is only in 2013 that the private respondents started disturbing her possession, which prompted her to approach the concerned Block Land & Land Reforms Officer for recording her name as bargadar instead and in place of her deceased husband and that such application is pending. Referring to the disturbances created by the private respondents, the petitioner had lodged complaint with the officer-in-charge of the local police station and sought for assistance so that the private respondents could be kept at a distance from the said plots and cultivation thereof by her could be facilitated. On April 3, 2013, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents at the outset raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, claim of the petitioner that she had been cultivating the land uninterruptedly from 2005 till 2013 and it is only in 2013 that the private respondents have disturbed her possession, is absolutely incorrect.

(2.) HE refers to the plaint filed by the petitioner, giving rise to T.S. 171 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakdwip wherein she prayed for a declaration that the private respondents do not have any right, title or interest in respect of the said plots of land and that they should be permanently restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession. According to him, the suit was dismissed for default and such fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Mr. Jana, learned advocate for the petitioner had sought for time to obtain instructions as to whether any such suit was at all instituted by the petitioner or not. Today, on instructions, he submits that the fact regarding institution of the suit and dismissal thereof for default is correct. However, he seeks to contend that there has been no objection from the side of the land- owner to prevent the petitioner from cultivating the said plots of land and that proper receipts have been obtained by her upon delivering bhag produce to the land-owner. He submits that the private respondents have no right in law to disturb the petitioner's possession and, therefore, the police ought to be directed to render proper assistance to her.

(3.) HERE , the facts of the present case would clearly reveal that the petitioner is not in a position to unambiguously establish her right in respect of the property in question. Her suit has been dismissed for default. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of a material fact, there are other hurdles which stand in the way of the Court exercising its discretion in her favour. There is no doubt that barga right is heritable but at the same time law requires certain acts to be performed by the lawful heir of a deceased bargadar. Rule 2B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Rules') provides as follows :-