BIDYA BHUSAN MAHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the sons of deceased Balaram Mahapatra of village Beruabaid, P.S. Raipur, district Bankura. During his lifetime Balaram Mahapatra had filed a return in Form 7A in terms of Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 read with Rule 14C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules. The Revenue Officer, Sarenga Settlement 'C' Camp, P.S. Raipur district Bankura had directed for scrutiny and verification of the said return submitted by Balaram Mahapatra.

(2.) In the meantime Balaram Mahapatra died and the Revenue Officer directed issue of notices to all members of Balaram Mahapatra's family. Harish Chandra and Sibesh Chandra Mahapatra, two sons of Balaram Mahapatra appeared in the said proceeding claiming that they were separate from their father Balaram Mahapatra and that they enjoyed their properties separately. They contended that they could not be considered as members of their father's family. The Revenue Officer, Sarenga Settlement 'C' Camp refused to accept this submission. He held that Balaram Mahapatra and his family would be entitled to retain 17.30 acres of non-irrigated land and 6.92 acres of orchard. The Revenue Officer recorded that some lands belonging to the raiyati family were not shown in the return submitted by Balaram Mahapatra. The petitioners were asked to again exercise their option. The Revenue Officer by his order dated 21st August 1976 recorded that no option had been filed. He allowed the raiyati family to retain 17.30 acres of non-irrigated land (equivalent to 7 hectors) and 1.42 acres of orchard (equivalent to 5.7464 hectors). A separate schedule of vested lands was also prepared.

(3.) The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the aforesaid order made under Section 14T(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. They have prayed for interim orders to restrain the respondents from taking any action in furtherance of the order dated 21st August, 1976 made in Case No. 15/202 during the pendency of the case. The petitioners were directed to serve copies of the writ petition and all documents in support of their prayer for interim orders upon the respondents.