EK LAL DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the appeal is whether there can be any proceeding under Chapter II B of West Bengal Land Reforms Act in the absence of any notification under West Bengal Land Reforms Act extending the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the transferred territories. It is also in issue as to whether any surplus land is liable to be vested without acquiring physical possession theereof by the State.

(2.) Following the initiation of a proceeding under Section 14 T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1995 in respect of lands held by the raiyat namely Ram Mohan Das of Karandighi, West Dinajpur, the concerned raiyat raised an objection with regard to the purported vesting of alleged surplus land. It was registered as objection case No. 89 of 1976. On examination of all the relevant documents and the evidence, it was held that Ram Mohan Das arid his family were entitled to retain 17.30 acres of non-irrigated agricultural land. 9.33 acres of non-irrigated agricultural land was directed to be vested in the Stale with effect from 15/02/1975. It was contended by the legal heirs of Ram Mohan Das that the statement contained in the return in Form No. 7 submitted by Mr. Ram Mohan Das did not reveal the actual state of affairs. It was contended that the Mitakshara co-operational family dissolved long way back, with the sons acquiring separate share and interest in respect of their separate lands. Accepting the proposition that the family and the erstwhile raiyat consisted of only three members, It was held by the revenue official that the family was entitled to retain 17.40 acres of non- irrigated land. Direction was given to the family to surrender 9.33 acres of agricultural land.

(3.) Challenging that finding, the appellants filed a writ petition which was registered as C.R. No. 11922(W) of 1981. On consideration of the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid writ application. Challenging that finding of the learned Single Judge, the appeal being F.M.A. 105 of 2004 has been filed.