SAMIJAN BEWA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER LALGOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ application, the petitioner inter alia, challenged the virus of the amendment of Rule 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1956 which was incorporated by the Notification No 1960-Ref/20R -1-79 dated May 26, 1979. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the recording of the name 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 nor in the present revised settlement records in respect of the said land there was no 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 bargardars in respect of the said land of the petitioner without 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 the said respondents 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 21(3) as amended by the Notification dated 26th May 1979 is set out below :

(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 No 5 to 9 as barraters 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 counterfeiting any of the statements and/or allegations made in the write petition and as such the statements made in the Write petition remains uncontroversial.