STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. PIJUS KANTI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order dated May 2, 1974 by Anil Kumar Sen, J whereby the connected writ petition, being C.R. 83(W) of 1970 and other applications heard analogously were made absolute. By the order under appeal the order of the Revenue Officer, Balurghat Settlement Office, dated January 9, 1970 revising the record-of-rights under s. 44(2a) was set aside and liberty was given to the Revenue Officer to implead the subsequent purchaser and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. The view taken by the learned Judge was that under the provisions of s. 44(2a) notice of the initiation of the proceeding thereunder is to be given to all persons interested and it was held that subsequent purchasers of lands of khatians from the recorded owners are persons interested and accordingly they are entitled to an opportunity of being heard.

(2.) Facts in this case are as follows : The lands are situate in the district of West Dinajpur and there is no dispute that the record-of-rights were finally published in the said district between 1957 and 1958. In the said finally published record-of-rights one Amalendu Sarkar (respondent no.5) got his name recorded as the raiyat in the newly opened Khatian no.200 in his name, under his father's employer Kshetra Mohan Das who, it was alleged, was a big raiyat, on basis of hukumnama and rent receipts. Thereafter on May 22, 1962 the petitioner purchased the land of plot of 337 of the said Khatian 200, Mouja Amrul bari, district West Dinajpur from Amalendu Sarkar by a registered conveyance. Rent in respect of the said holding thereafter was being deposited in the name of Amalendu Sarkar marfat the petitioner. On December 30, 1969 suo motu proceedings were started by the Revenue Officer under s 44(2a) and there is no dispute that no notice of this proceeding was given to the petitioner though notice was served on Amalendu Sarkar. The entry in the record-of-rights recording Amalendu Sarkar as holding the land as raiyat sthitiban in respect of the said Khatian was cancelled on the finding that no hukumnama or rent receipts were in existence nor possession was ever with him and in attestation proceeding only Kshetra Mohun Das's name was recorded. The petitioner moved this court by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legal validity of the said order canceling the Khatian contending, inter alia that in the said proceeding before the final order was passed notice should have been issued on the petitioner as required by law as he was an interested person.

(3.) This application was opposed by the State and an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State disputing the allegations and contentions made by the petitioner. The learned Judge, as already stated, held that a subsequent purchaser is a person interested and the Revenue Officer is under a statutory obligation to implead all parties interested. It was further held that as subsequent purchasers are persons interested and the petitioner not having been given an opportunity of being heard the proceeding was not held in accordance with law. The Rule accordingly was made absolute as already indicated. In this appeal the propriety of this order has been challenged by the State of West Bengal and its concerned officers.