SAMIJAN BEWA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER LALGOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ application, the petitioner, inter alia, challenged the vires of the amendment of Rule 2 1 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules 196b which was incorporated by the Notification No. 1960 L. Ref/20r-1-79 dated May 2 6, 1979. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the recording of the name of the respondent No. 5 to 9 as Bargadars in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is the owner of plot Nos. 1939 and 1352 in mouja Badupur. under P. S. Lalgola in the district of Murshidabad and it is alleged that the petitioner was and still is cultivating the said land by her only son It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the present revised settlement records and neither in the revisional settlement for in the present revised settlement records in respect of the said land there was recording of the name of any bargadar in respect of the said land which clearly indicated that the lands were under the personal cultivation of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that on 17. 12. 82, the petitioner came to know that the names of the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 were recorded as bargadars in respect of the said land of the petitioner without serving any notice upon the petitioner and/or without giving the petitioner any hearing and/or any opportunity of being heard. It was alleged that the said recording of the name of the bargadar was made behind the back of the petitioner and without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is further stated that an enquiry was made by the petitioner in the office of the Revenue Officer, the respondent No. 1 as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before the recording of the name of said respondents as bargadars and that the petitioner was informed that there was no requirement for service of any individual notice in view of the amended provision of Rule 21 (3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules as amended by the Notification dated 26th May, 1979. The relevant provision of Rule 2 1 (31 as amended by. the Notification dated of Rule 2 1 (3) as amended by the Notification dated 2 6th May 1979 is set out below : "21 (3) The parties interested shall be deemed to have been given an opportunity of being heard under sub-rule (2), if, before one week of the injury, if any, or, where no inquiry is made, one week before incorporating in the village record of rights any change on account of clause (e) of Section 50, the Revenue Officer publishes a notice of his intention to make an inquiry, or, as the case may be to incorporate any change as mentioned in sub-rule (2), by affixing a notice to some conspicuous part of the village/mbuza where the land affected is situated and by affixing a notice to a conspicious place. ' in the office of the Gram Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the land affected is situated.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner categorically stated that no notice whatsoever was Issued and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before recording the names of the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 as bargadars in respect of the land in question.

(3.) NOBODY appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the Rule and 'no affidavit -in- opposition was filed by the respondents controverting any of the: statements and/or allegations made in the writ petition and as such the statements made in the writ petition remain uncontroverted.