SATISH CHANDRA HALDER Vs. REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Rule arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have alleged, inter alia, that after necessary enquiries by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Berhampur Circle and on recommendations made by him, plot no. 2103 appertaining to Khatian No. 731, Mouza Kodia, Berhampur Distriict Murshidabad measuring 1. 10 acres was allotted to them under Section 49 of the West Bengal Land reforms Act, 1959. It has further been alleged that after the grant of the Patta dated 22. 9. 1975, rents were accepted and the receipts were granted. By a Memo No. 264 (0 (2) L. R. dated 15th May, 1976 issued by the Senior Land Reforms Officer, Sadar Berhampur, the petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the allotments in favour of them should not be anulled,, for mis-representations of facts at the time of making an application for settlement. Pursuant to the said notice, an enquiry was held and (by the impugned order dt. 13. 7. -. 1975, passed by the Revenue Officer/sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, berhampur, Murshidabad in Case No. 30/xii of 1976-77, the settlement made in favour of the petitioners/allottees was annulled, and there was a direction for distribution of the disputed land amongst other absolutely land-less-men of the locality. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have since come up. It has been held in the order challenged before us that a statement was made by the allottee-on 21. 2. 1976 before one member of L. R. Committee that they were not in possession of the land, in question, before the settlement, whereas they claimed to be in possession at the time of grant of the' settlement. On the basis of such admission made by the petitioners, it was found that the allottees committed the acts of mis-representation of facts and the settlement so granted was liable to be annulled by invoking the provisions of Section 49 (2) of West Bengal Land Reforms act.

(2.) IT has been argued before us that there are material irregularities on the part of the authority concerned in exercising the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is submitted that Section 49 (1) of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act as amended upto date provides, inter alia, that "notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this act or in any other law for the time being in force, settlement of any land which is at the disposal of the State Government, shall be made without any premium being charged for it, in such manner as may be prescribed, with persons who are residents of the locality where the land is situate and who together with other members of their family own no land or less than 0. 4047 Hectare of land, one half of the land cultivated by them as Bargadars being taken into account for the purpose of calculating the aggregate of such land, and subject to the following conditions, viz. , -

(3.) IN view of such Provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the condition of remaining in possession of the land in question, at the time of settlement, is a necessary factor. At the time of distribution of land under Section 49 (1) of the said Act, the point of remaining in possession of the property, is obviously unnecessary and it is not a necessary consideration at all.