LAWS(CAL)-2014-6-125

BISWAJIT OJHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 18, 2014
Biswajit Ojha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioners are patta holders of different plots of land which were settled with them by the concerned authority as per section 49(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. They are in possession of the land settled with them by the concerned authority by grant of patta. Acting on the basis of the recommendation for cancellation of the petitioners' patta made by the concerned Bon-O-Bhuml Sanskar Sthayee Samiti, a proceeding was initiated for cancellation of the petitioners' patta under section 49(2) of the said Act by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kharagpur, who caused to have served notice upon the petitioners inviting them to appear in the hearing on 26th February, 1014 at 11.00 a.m. to be held at the office of the said Sub Divisional Officer, Kharagpur, in connection with the proceeding for cancellation of the patta. The legality and/or validity of the said notice was challenged by the petitioners by filing an original application being O.A. No. 618 of 2014 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench.

(2.) The Learned Tribunal by its order dated 25th February, 2014 disposed of the said tribunal application without interfering with the impugned notice by holding, inter alia, that this is too early of a stage where any interference with the impugned notice is necessary as no decision has yet been taken by the concerned authority for cancellation of the patta and even if any decision is ultimately taken, the authority may think of providing alternative remedy to the present patta holders. The learned Tribunal also held that the authority concerned would not blindly cancel the patta.

(3.) It is interesting to note here that though the Learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the impugned notice for the reason as mentioned above, still then the defects in the impugned notice were taken note of by the Learned Tribunal, which ultimately held that the proceeding cannot be quashed because of such defects in the notice which according to the Tribunal are curable. The petitioners were, thus, directed to ventilate their grievances before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer in course of hearing of the said proceeding.