PANCHANAN PAIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that respondent Nos. 4 (a) - 4 (c) Nairn mondal, Raisuddin Mondal and Abbas mondal filed an application being Case no. 2. 2 of 1973 before the Junior Land reforms Officer, Habra, L. R. Circle, 24 Parganas, Respondent No. 2, against the petitioner claiming to be Bargadars and prayed for necessary recording. The said Junior Land Reforms Officer by Order No. 6 dated December 7, 1973 on consideration of the available evidence, allowed the said application. The said order has been impeached in this rule.

(2.) THE petitioners have alleged that they along with proforma respondent no. 2 Birendra Nath Mondal were and are owners of 2. 90 acres of lands and have been in khas possession of the said lands. It has also been alleged that they have cultivated those lands with the help of their own labourers along with other hired labourers and because of the fact of such possession, their names have been duly recorded in the finally published records. It has further been alleged by them that Ayub Ali mondal, proforma respondent No. 1 who is the father of the said Respondent No. 4 (a)-4 (c) was a labourer under them and the said proforma Respondent No. 2 for 1377 B. S. and he cultivated the lands in question along with some other lands at a total cost of rs. 600/- and the petitioners and the said proforma Respondent No. 2 have duly received the entire produce for the said year on payment of the sum as mentioned above. It has also been alleged that they have also cultivated the lands in dispute along with other lands for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 b. S. It further appears from the pleadings that after the impugned order, the petitioner have filed Title Suit No. 551 of 1973 in the Court of the Second munsif at Barasat, for having the said respondent Nos. 4 (a)-4 (c) permanently restrained from disturbing their possession or from dispossessing them and in fact an ad interim order of injunction has been issued on December 12, 1973 and the same is still pending. It has been alleged further that even inspite of the said order the said Respondents forcibly took away the paddy belonging to the petitioners and for that they have also instituted criminal proceeding which is pending in the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate Barasat.

(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner have challenged the determination as made by the Junior Land Reforms officer, as totally unauthorised and without jurisdiction as the said officer has not been specially empowered as a revenue Officer in terms of section 50 of the Land Reforms Act. In this view of the matter the petitioners have submitted that all acts done by the said officer and steps taken by him in the connected proceeding, including the passing of the impugned order were improper and void. The petitioners have thus contended that the assumption of jurisdiction by the said officer was improper and irregular, apart from the fact that the said order is also bad, void and against principles of natural justice inasmuch as in making the same, the said officer, without giving the petitioners an opportunity, has relied on a secret enquiry report by the tahasilder.