HARADHAN CHANDRA DAS Vs. MADHUSUDAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application the validity, legality and the propriety of the order dated 8th July 1991 passed by the collector under the W. B. Act., XXIII of 1973 in R. A.L. A. Case No. 128 of 1990 is called in question.

(2.) Petitioners are admittedly said to have purchased 15 decimals of lands in plot No. 1071, Plot No. 1071/ 2431 and Plot No. 1071/ 2432 of Mouza - Bar Bajitpur under Sutahata Police Station. It is claimed by the petitioners that following the execution and registration of sale deed they have been in possession of the suit land. The opposite parties 1 and 2 made an application under section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration Alienated land Act, 1973 for restoration of the lands. The said application was contested by the petitioner. On 29th July, 1985 the Special officer and the J.L. R. O. passed an order in R. A. L. Case No. 314/2 of 1979-80 directing inter alia restoration of the lands in question to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforementioned Order preferred an appeal to the collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, whereupon the appellate authority considering the contention of the appellants dismissed the same. The petitioners challenged the appellate court's order by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court after quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the courts below, remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the same on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant to the said order the appellate court again reiterated its finding on 8th July, 1991. The petitioners once again challenged the appellate court's order qua it was passed without considering the legal requirements under the provision of section 4 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further advanced an interesting contention that the learned appellate court's order was based on parody of reasons. It is further contended that the appellate court has not considered either the evidence of the opposite parties or the petitioners while arriving at the conclusion that the consideration amount flowed from the document was for household expenses. It was not considered further that there was a Clause for repurchase of the land train the petitioners. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel further maintained that the recitals of the document shows that the consideration amount was utilised for the purpose of purchasing land and also for repaying the loan of the society. So in such situation the appellate court's order for restoration of the land to the opposite party is absolutely illegal.