HAIDAR ALI MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAIDER Ali Mondal impugned the order dated 19. 8. 76 in Case No. 69 of 1976 under section 14t (3) of the West Bengal Land reforms Act contending inter alia that his prior representation as contained in annexure 'b'was not heard out before the order dated 19. 8. 76 was passed by the authority concerned. Haider Ali having died during the pendency of the instant rule, his heirs are continuing the present proceedings.

(2.) THE contention raised by the petitioners is to the effect that Section 14n of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act imposes an obligation upon the prescribed authority to determine the question as to whether any land is or is not within the irrigated area. The prescribed mode or manner of determination of the question as to whether any land is or is not within the irrigated area has been given out in Rule 14b of the West bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. This stipulates that the prescribed authority while holding an enquiry, would record a memorandum of such enquiry and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, should give his decision with reasons.

(3.) CURIOUSLY enough the respondents do not file any affidavit-in-opposition though duly served. It was their duty to show from the records that a hearing in the manner prescribed was given to the petitioner haider Ali Mondal pursuant to such representation as contained in Annexure 'b'. If such determination has not been made, I fail to understand as to how the order impugned was passed in the manner it was so done. Accordingly I direct that the order as contained in Annexure 'a' should stand, set aside and a hearing has to be given to the petitioners pursuant to the representation of Haider Ali Mondal as contained in Annexure 'b'within three months from today and only after such determination is made as to how much of his lands are irrigated or otherwise, which is to be done within 4 months frcm this day, the case No. 69 of 1976 under Section 14t (3)of rhe West Bengal Land Reforms Act is to be decided afresh. The petitioners would also be entitled to furnish a copy of the representation as contained in Annexure 'b' to the parties concerned if the representation as contained in Annexure 'b' is not traceable with the respondents.