NIRMAL KUMAR KHAMARU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue Officer, Lalbagh Settlement B Camp, the Respondent No. 4 herein, started B.R. Case No. 114 BIR 1970 under Sec. 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, for determining the lands which the Petitioner was entitled to retain in khas under the said provision of law. Notice of the said case was served upon the Petitioner asking him to submit statements of his lands in Form 1 and also his choice for retention within the date mentioned in the notice.

(2.) On February 23, 1970, the Revenue Officer, the Respondent No. 4, took up the hearing of the said case in the presence of the Petitioner who had in the meantime submitted return in Form B and statement in Form 1. The Revenue Officer by his said order dated February 23, 1970, recorded that he had examined the said statement and the form submitted by the Petitioner. According to the Revenue Officer, on the date of vesting the Petitioner was in possession of 60.22 acres of agricultural, 11.53 acres of non -agricultural, 0.90 acre of homestead and 3.51 acres of lands of other categories out of which 19.03 acres of agricultural, 11.31 acres of non -agricultural, 0.08 acre of homestead and 0.04 acre of lands of other categories had already vested in the State being his non -retained lands. Details of the said lands were shown in annex. A of the order -sheet. The Revenue Officer further observed in his order that the Petitioner had purported to retain a number of plots, set out in the order -sheet, as non -agricultural lands although they were actually used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Revenue Officer did not consider the said plots for retention by the Petitioner although he had opted to retain them. The Revenue Officer, accordingly, ordered that the Petitioner be allowed to retain lands as per schedule at annex. B to his order -sheet. He also ordered that 16.19 acres of agricultural, 0.22 acre of non -agricultural, 0.03 acre of homestead and 0.05 acre of lands of other categories as described in schedule at annex. C of the order -sheet would stand vested in the State from the date of vesting. These lands were in addition to the lands previously vested.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Revenue Officer in disposing of the said B.R. case did not determine the nature and the character of the lands opted by the Petitioner to be retained according to their classification given in the R.S. records. In my view, Mr. Banerjee is right in his submission that the Revenue Officer was bound to dispose of the said B.R. case according to the classification of the lands shown in the finally published R.S. records. Similarly, the Petitioner was also not entitled to question the correctness of the classification of the lands as made in the R.S. records.