ADINATH BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been issued for quashing orders passed in District Burdwan case No. 210 of 1969 under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code by the Revenue Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Burdwan 'C' camp.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner took settlement of 1.72 acres of agricultural land of C. S. Khatian Nos. 186 and 537 in mouza Kaligram J. L. No. 103, District Burdwan in 1950 corresponding to 1357 B. S. from the previous owner Nilratan Mukherjee, since deceased. The said lands have been duly described in paragraph 2 of the said petition and the petitioner since the date of his taking set dement of the said lands has all along been possessing the same and he paid rents to his previous landlord Nilratan Mukherjee and obtained receipts from him till the date of vesting. The petitioner also paid rents to the State in respect of the said lands up to 1375 B. S. It has also been stated in the said petition that the said land was wrongly recorded in the revisional records of rights in the name of his landlord Nilratan Mukherjee. The petitioners have made two applications on 8th April, 1958 under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act for revision of the said revisional record of rights and for recording his tenancy in respect of the said lands. These were cases Nos. 39 and 40 of 1958 On March 2, 1960 the Assistant Settlement Officer after hearing the parties allowed the said applications and directed for revision of the said record of rights by recording the name of the petitioner in the R. S. Record of rights in Khatian Nos. 537 and 1646. No appeal has been preferred against the said order of the A. S. O. in July 1969 i.e. more than nine years after the passing of the said order a notice was issued by the Revenue Officer, Burdwan 'C' camp on the petitioner intimating him that a proceeding under Section 151 has been started in case No. District Burdwan No. 210 of 1969 for the purpose of correcting the said record of rights and directing the petitioner to produce evidences on the date of hearing fixed. It is stated that the petitioner through his lawyer appeared in the said case and filed the rent receipts granted by the learned Nilratan Mukherjee for the years 1357 B.S. to 1361 B.S. as well as the rent receipts granted by the State from 1370 to 1374 B. S. and receipts of payment of Canal Taxes from 1958 to 1967 in support of his taking settlement of the said land and possessing the same. The Revenue Officer by his order dated July 23, 1969 found that the story of taking settlement in 1950 was not correct inasmuch as the name of the petitioner was not recorded in Khashra Khatian in respect of the disputed plots and that the transferee married the daughter of the transferor in 1956. The Revenue Officer, therefore, held that the rent receipts were antedated and directed for cancellation of the said R. S. Khatian No. 1653 and 1654 and for treating the said lands as the lands of the said owner Nilratan Mukherjee.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the respondent No. 3, the Revenue Officer, has been filed. It has been stated therein that though the petitioner claimed possession of the disputed land on the basis of the alleged settlement in 1950 yet he could not explain why his name was not recorded in the field survey in respect of the said lands. It has been averred that in the 44 (2a) proceedings the claim of the petitioner was allowed on the basis of the concessions made by Settlor, Nilratan Mukherjee. It has also been stated that the petitioner married the daughter of Nilratan Mukherjee. It has been stated therein that the alleged settlement was made after the marriage of the petitioner in 1956. The Revenue Officer after duly considering the evidences has rightly held that the settlement was made after the date of vesting. The order of the Revenue Officer, it has been stated, is not illegal and without jurisdiction and the said proceeding is not barred by limitation. It has also been submitted that the respondent No. 3 being vested with the powers under Section 57A of the said Act is competent to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code in initiating the impugned proceeding which is quite legal and within jurisdiction.