NAMITA ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dismissing their appeal under Section 44(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and affirming the order under Section 44(2a) of the Act passed by the Revenue Officer, Settlement 'C' Camp, Taki, obtained the present Rule. The Revenue Officer had drawn up a suo motu proceeding under Section 44(2a) of the Act for revising classification of the plots in question which had been recorded as tank fisheries in the finally published R.S. records. It appears that in the R.S. records, as originally prepared, the said plots were not classified as tank fisheries but they were recorded as beelan, garhlayek patit, bandh, path etc. Another Revenue Officer purporting to act under Section 45 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act had purported to change the previous classification of the first four groups of plots mentioned in the, order under Section 44(3) and described them as gheri machh chash. Similarly, his classification of the plots mentioned in the fifth category in the order under Section 44(3) were changed under Section 44(1).

(2.) The Respondents in preparing the R.S. records in question and making revision thereafter under Section 44(2a) were required to classify the plots with reference to their nature as on the collate vesting.

(3.) The principal question in the impugned proceeding under Section 44(2a) was whether or not, at the material date, i.e. the date of vesting, the plots in question or any of them were tank fisheries within the meaning of the explanation to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section