KASHINATH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 1st April, 2002 is assailed by this appeal. Upon reading of the impugned judgment and order we find that the only point raised before the Tribunal by the applicant herein is, to challenge the order of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer being the appellate authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), whether without considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellate authority could decide the matter on merit or not. From the records the following facts emerge:

(2.) THE applicants, Mondals, had filed an application for recording their names as bargadars under the ownership of one Abanti Nath Pal and Jibanti nath Pal being heirs and legal representatives of one Jitendra Nath Pal, since deceased, in respect of 3. 39 acres of land, Dag No. 140 of Mouza atghara in the year, 1978, though the land in question had been transferred to different persons including the private respondent herein at different times in between the years, 1965 to 1966. The then JLRO by his order dated 29th january, 1979 rejected that application once. Subsequently, the names of the applicants before us, were recorded as bargadars without serving any notice to them or without their knowledge. It is also not disputed that the land in question was not being used as agricultural land and the said land was not under cultivation by the said respondents. Further, it was stated that one of the recorded bargadars is engaged in other profession. The version of the applicant before us is that they all along have and still had been cultivating the said land in question and even they tried to offer their share of produce to the land owners/respondents herein but the same was refused. In view of this factual background recording of barga has been made by the bllro. The respondents had preferred statutory appeal against the aforesaid order of recording barga beyond the period provided in the statute. So an application was filed for condonation of delay. On 13th January, 2000 the application along with the appeal was taken up for consideration by the appellate authority viz. ADM and DLLRO, 24th Parganas (North ). On that date learned Lawyer for the applicant (herein) viz. Sanjit Sarkar appeared and the appellate authority directed to supply a copy of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay to him. From the document annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition it appears to us that on the same very date, may be at a later point of time the said copy of the application was served and the same was received by him. No opposition to the said application for condonation of delay was filed. On 27th April, 2000 in presence of the learned Lawyers for both the parties the said appeal was taken up for hearing and in their presence an order was passed for conducting local enquiry. In fact, as it has been recorded in the said order by the appellate authority a proposal was made for spot enquiry on behalf of the respondent (appellant before us) and such proposal was not opposed by the private respondents. Accordingly, in order to decide the appeal, the said enquiry was asked to be conducted by the BLLRO personally for ascertaining the names of the cultivating possessors and quantum of land cultivated by each recorded bargadar and to submit a report.

(3.) ON 23rd June, 2000 the appeal was taken up for hearing and considering all aspects of the matter, the appellate authority, found that the applicant before us failed to prove the case of cultivation at any point of time with acceptable evidence. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. The judgment passed by the Revenue Officer was set aside and the names of the appellants in respect of an area of 2. 42 acres of land were directed to be deleted from the respective khatians.