PRAN KRISHNA KAMAR Vs. JUNIOR ASSESSOR SIBARAMPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in respect of procurement under the West Bengal Foodgrains (Intensive Procurement) Order 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order'). The petitioners are 'producers' as defined by the Order. They own and cultivate paddy lands in mouzas Srirampore, Shibakalinagore, Madhusudanpur and Kasinagore, in the 24 Parganas. The petitioners were served with notices in Form A by the Assessor-Inspector Kakdwip and the junior assessor Sitarampur. They filed declarations in Form B., sometime in 18-12-1952. In the declarations it was stated that the petitioners held and cultivated 432 bighas 15 kottas 4 ch. of paddy lands, out of which 273 bighas 10 kottas and 4 chattaks were held and cultivated on their personal account, 99 taighas 5 cottas were held and cultivated, for the purposes of a debuttar and 60 bighas were held, and cultivated for the purposes of a School. Part of the lands were cultivated in khas and part in bhag. It appears that the petitioners' father executed a deed of trust, dedicating certain properties in favour of the deity Sri Visalakshi and Siba Thakur and there is also a charitable trust.

(2.) The procurement officers investigated the facts and came to the conclusion that the petitioners held and cultivated 120.11 acres on their personal account, and 84.71 acres on account of the Debuttar and trusts. The petitioners claimed exemption for 64 members of their family but were allowed exemption for 62 members. Notices in form 'C' were served on the petitioners dated 5-2-1953 directing them to deliver 784 maunds 13 STS. 12 chattaks of aman paddy in respect of their holdings other than Kasinagore and 6 mds. 31 seers 4 chattaks in respect of the latter. The petitioners have not preferred any appeals before the appellate tribunal provided for by the Order, but have come up straight to this Court. A rule was issued on 24-2-1953, directing the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue, directing them not to give effect to the said directives. The constitutional points raised have already been dealt by me in -- 'Atulya Kumar De v. Director Procurement & Supply'. Mr. Haldar however raises a new point which requires consideration. In this case, a considerable portion of the land was held as shebait and trustee. He points out that under para. 2(4) of the Order a 'producer' includes a person cultivating more than 10 acres of land, as a shebait or trustee.

(3.) Although the Order gives exemption to the members of the family of the shebait or trustee, there is no provision for any exemption to be given in respect of the bhog puja of the deity, or for the consumption of the beneficiaries.