PROVASH CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule challenges proceedings in B. R. Case nos. 423,429,430,431 and 432 of 1970 before the Revenue Officer, Taki, under section 6 (1) of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

(2.) THE said five proceedings were started against the respondent nos. 4 to 8 as the Revenue Officer found that they did not file B form return. The Revenue Officer allowed the respondent nos. 4 to 8 to retain some lands and allowed the petitioners land to be vested. The petitioners state that they purchased by a registered deed 99 decimal of lands in mouza Sandesh khali, touzi no. 2981, R. S. 133, lot no. 139 J. L. No. 52, Joygopalpur in Dag Nos. 1018, 1017 and 1014 belonging to respondent nos. 4 to 8. They claim that they are entitled to retain lands as the same were within the ceding limits of the said respondents. On hearing on the 14th June, 1972 that the lands of the petitioners would be settled and that the same vested in the State they made enquiries and learnt that the Revenue Officer considered representation by some other vendees of the respondent nos. 4 to 8 and their lands were taken out from respondent nos. 4 to 8. But the petitioners had no knowledge and could not represent their cases. The petitioners claim to be bonafide purchasers for value by a registered document and hold rent receipts. Their names were mutated and the State Government accepted them as raiyats. The impugned B. R. Cases were heard on the 30th of April, 1971 by the Revenue Officer, Taki who gave the order of vesting of the petitioners land without giving them any hearing. The petitioners further state that they have been all along in possession and have [been cultivating and residing in the said land since purchase.

(3.) THE question of the fights of purchasers after the date of vesting has in different forms been adjudicated from time to time in this High court, the facts and circumstances, of course, varying in each individual case. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing in support of the rule cited several decisions some of which are apparently against him and some in his favour. Mr. K. B. Ganguly on behalf of the State contended that there was hardly any dispute with regard to the position in law about transfers after the date of vesting. The transferees, according to him, are never entitled to any notice.