MITALI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had purchased the land between 7th April, 1989 and 11th August, 1989 by diverse deed of sale from different owners, whose names were recorded either in the C. S. and R. S. records-of right. On the face of threat on the land being vested, a Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 was initiated on 27th September, 1989 by the appellant before the learned Munsif (2nd Court), Durgapur, Burdwan and obtained a temporary injunction on 23rd March, 1990. The suit was decreed against the State exparte on 21st July, 1990. Despite communication of the decree, the records-of-right having not been corrected, on 16th May, 1991, a writ petition being C. O.6640(W) of 1991 was moved. This was disposed of on the said date by the Hon'ble Altamas Kabir, J. by directing the B. L. & L. R. O. to correct the records-of-right within three months. On account of default, Contempt Rule No. 51 of 1992 was issued on 24th January, 1992. In the Title Execution Case No. 3 of 1991 seeking to execute the decree dated 21st July, 1990, the State Government in the meantime deposited the cost. On 13th November, 1992, the concerned officer undertook before this Court in the contempt proceedings that they would be correcting the records-of-right. The records-of-right were duly corrected and then produced on 20th November, 1992 before this Court. The appellant's name was recorded in the records-of-right as 'raiyat'.

(2.) An application under section 144(2) of Cr. PC was moved. On the strength of the order passed on 29th January, 1993 in the said proceeding, a writ petition being C. O. 1530(W) of 1993 was moved in which this Court directed on the said date the police authority to carry out the order of the learned Executive Magistrate. At this juncture a proceeding under the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975 was initiated and a notice under section 4 was issued. This was challenged in a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 12th March, 1993 in which interim orders were granted and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file opposition in the proceedings. However, on 12th March, 1993, the Revenue Officer passed an ex parte order against the appellant. This order was challenged in a writ petition being C. O. 11527(W) of 1993.

(3.) There are allegations that the learned Advocate for the appellant was beaten up in the process of hearing before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. The said learned Advocate filed a report before this Court. Further interim order was issued on 15th September, 1993, directing the respondents not to change the nature and character of the property. An order was passed for submitting report by the police authority. The report of the police officer was submitted on 14th January, 1994. In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 19th July 1994, the respondent No. 9 stated his age as 28 years, thus he would be 9 years old in 1975.