LALIT MOHAN SARKAR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed under section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act directing for revision of the record of rights of R.S. khatian No. 50 of Mouza Bimalpara, J. L. No. 141, P.S. Kaliaganj, District West Dinajpur.

(2.) In order to appreciate the facts of the case it is necessary to state an brief the salient facts. The suit-property originally belonged to one Ram Chandra Mondal, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The said Ram Chandra Mondal was a tenant in respect of the land measuring about 4.53 acres under the then landlord. His name was also recorded in the District Settlement record of rights as a tenant. In the revisional record of rights this land was recorded in the name of Monoran - jan Roy, a grandson of Ram Chandra Mondal, as appears from the khasra record of rights and subsequently in the attestation proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Schedule B under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the names of the petitioner No. 1 and the name of Monoranjan Roy, one of the sons of Harimohan Roy, one of the sons of Ram Chandra, were recorded.

(3.) A notice under section 44 (2a) was issued to the petitioners starting a suo motu proceeding, being objection case no. 8 of 1970, and along with the notice a copy of the order - sheet was served on the petitioners who were directed to produce relevant papers and documents to support the entry in the record of rights of the aforesaid khatian. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioners appeared before the - Revenue Officer and produced certain rent receipts and it was contended on their behalf that the aforesaid land which originally was owned by their predecessor Ram Chandra as a tenant under the then superior landlord was surrendered by Ram Chandra in favour of the previous landlord and thereafter in 1359 B. S., the petitioners took settlement of the land on the basis of an Amalnama. It was also the further case of the petitioners that they paid rents to the superior landlord till the date of vesting of the superior interest in respect of the said land in the State. The petitioners thus contend that the record of right has been duly prepared as it is based on the basis of the settlement taken by the petitioners after the surrender of the tenancy of Ram Chandra from the then superior landlord and as such the record of rights cannot be revised in a suo motu proceeding under section 44(2a).