JYOTIRMOYEE DEBI Vs. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted settlement of 17.23 acres of lands now recorded in R.S. Khatian Nos. 11243, 11244, 11245, and 11246 by Krishnanagar Raj Estate. After the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into effect, the petitioner became a tenant directly under the State in respect of the aforesaid lands and the said tenancy is alleged to have been recorded in the finally published R.S. Khatian Nos. 11243, 11244, 11245 and 11246. Sometime in June, 1968 a proceeding under Section 5-A of the Act was initiated for enquiring into the question as to whether the transfer of the lands in favour of the petitioner was a bona fide one. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Krishnanagar on examination of the materials adduced before him held that the transfer in question was made before 5th May, 1953 and hence the said transfer did not come under the purview of Section 5-A of the Act. The proceeding therefore were dropped. Thereafter a notice under Section 57 of the Act read with Section 44 (2-A) of the Act was issued for revising the entries in the Record of Rights. The petitioner was called upon to produce whatever evidence he had in his favour. It appears from the extract of the order sheet dated the 17th March, 1969 that the said proceedings were initiated on the ground that the alleged transaction showing transfer of the disputed lands by Maharaja Sourish Kumar Roy in favour of the petitioner appeared to be designed under tenancy created on the basis of unregistered documents viz. Amalanamas and rent receipts which evoked suspicion about the genuineness of the transfer, the object of which was to retain more lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed under Section 6 (1) of the Act The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice issued under Section 57 of the Act has come to this Court and obtained a rule nisi.

(2.) An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 by Sri Rabindra Chandra Dhar affirmed on 21st December, 1971. In the said affidavit it is alleged that the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act were dropped without considering the merits of the case viz. as to whether the transferees were in possession of the lands on the date of vesting of the alleged transfer was sham or not. It is further stated in paragraph 14 of the said affidavit that the proceedings under Section 44 (2-A) were not to enquire as to whether the transfer was bona fide or mala fide but to see whether, notwithstanding the transfer, the recorded tenant was in possession of the disputed Khatians on the date of vesting.

(3.) I have referred to the statement made in the affidavit of Sri Rabindra Chandra Dhar as the alleged reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 44 (2-A) of the Act as disclosed in the affidavit are not the same as recorded hi the extract of the order sheet dated 17th March, 1969.