BHAGYADHAR MONDAL Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER TAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule the petitioners have challenged the order dated May 19, 1969 passed by the Revenue Officer under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 declaring the transfer made by Mrityunjoy Sasmal in favour of his three daughter and one sister as not bona fide.

(2.) The said Mrityunjoy Sasmal, by a registered deed of Gift dated January 13, 1954, transferred certain quantities of land including Plots Nos.1904, 1904/3009 and 1904.3010 of Khatian No.262 measuring in all 7.94 acres. Achintya Sasmal, the son of Mrityunjoy Sasmal purchased 3.75 acres of lands from the transferee Chanchalabala Giri and one Kamal Krishna Jana purchased the other two plots from Kananbala Giri, another transferee of Mrityunjoy Sasmal. The petitioners purchased the whole of 7.49 acres of the said 3 plots from Achinta Sasmal and Kamal Krishna Jana by 5 registered deeds of sale, one executed on March 13, 1962 and the other four on June 18, 1968. The vendors of the petitioners, namely, the said Achinta Kumar Sasmal and Kamal Krishna Jana were not the original transferees of Mrityunjoy Sasmal. But they are the transferees of the transferees of Mrityunjoy. The petitioners are, therefore, the third grade of transferees. The complaint of the petitioners, is that the proceeding under Section 5A started against the said Mrityunjoy Sasmal and his transferees, namely, his daughters and sister was disposed of by the Revenue Officer without adding the petitioners as parties to the said proceeding and without giving them an opportunity of being heard. It has been contended by Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the Revenue Officer in disposing the proceeding under Section 5A overlooked the provisions of the proviso (i) to sub-section (5) of Section 5A which provides that no order shall be passed in an enquiry held under Section 5A except after giving the transferor and the transferee an opportunity of being heard. Clause (iv) of sub-section (7) of Section 5A provides that 'transferor' and 'transferee' include the successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee. It is contended that the petitioners are the successors-in-interest of the original transferees, namely, the said Chanchalabala Giri and Kananbala Giri.

(3.) The question which arises for consideration in this Rule is whether the expression in clause (iv) of sub-section (7), "successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee" includes only the vendors of the petitioners, namely, Achinta Kumar Sasmal, Kamal Krishna Jana or the same includes also the petitioners, as the successors-in-interest of the original transferees of the intermediary. Clause (iv) of sub-section (7) does not give any indication in that regard but it only provides that the transferor and transferee will includes the successors-in-interest of a transferor or a transferee. In my opinion, the petitioners are also included within the term, "successors-in-interest of a transferee", for the reasons stated hereinafter.