RABEA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The order under challenge in this writ application is an order passed by the Revenue Officer on 6.10.82 in Durgapur Case No. 311 of 1982 u/s 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as well as an order passed in appeal by the appellate authority being Appeal Case No. 13 of 1983.

(2.) The writ petitioner's grievances are that he does not possess land which is liable to be vested in the State u/s 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. He appeared before the Revenue Officer and submitted that the lands held, by him are in the non irrigated area.. The Revenue Officer considered the question. He held that, the raiment family held land in mouzas Sathkahania as well as mouza Dhandadihi. He referred to a notification. No. 7352 L, dated 11th July, 1971 of the Land & Land Revenue Department for the purpose of Sec. 14K(d) of the West Bengal L.R. Act. Relying on this notification he held that all the nougat within Kaksa P. S. (Mouza Sathkahania is within this P. S.) are within irrigated area of the D. V. C. Canal project. Accordingly he treated the lands held by the raiyat in the said mouza as irrigated land. At the same time he also held that the land held by the raiyat in mouza Dhandadihi are not within the irrigated area. Being aggrieved by this order the writ petitioner preferred an appeal being appeal No. 13 of 1983. The appellant authority accepted the finding of the Revenue Officer on the point whether the land in mouza Sathkahania is within irrigated area. The writ petitioner being aggrieved has preferred this application. On the other pn4nt whether the mother of the w it petitioner or the properties belonging to her can be taken into account in determining the size of the family of the writ petitioner as well as the determining the quantum of land held by her, the appellate authority directed the Revenue Officer to give a fresh opportunity of hearing to the appellant and exclude the mother from the family of the writ petitioner as well as also exclude the land held by her mother. The question that is being agitated before this Court whether the Revenue Officer is justified in arriving at the conclusion that the lands in mouza Sathkahania is within the irrigated area. The ld. Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the Revenue Officer has only relied on the notification referred to in the order. Me has neither decided the dispute in terms of Sec. 14 of the W.B. Land Reforms Act. It appears that Sec. 14K(d) defines irrigated area. It runs thus : "Irrigated area means an area specie as such by the State Government, by notification in the Of5cial Gazette, being an area which is, or is in the opinion of the State Government capable of being irrigated, at any time during the agricultural year commencing on the 1st day of Baisakh, 1377 B.S., or thereafter, from any State Canal Irrigation Project or State Power Division deep tubewell or shallow tubewell or any other state irrigation project or State river lift irrigation project." This definition clearly indicates that the irrigated area is an area specified in a notification made by Stan Government and such an area is or in the opinion of the State Government capable or being irrigated at any time during the agricultural year commencing from Baishak, 1377 B.S. or thereafter from Canal Irrigation, etc. To treat an area as an irrigated area for the purpose of Chapter IIB of West Bengal Land Reform Act. it has to be seen that the lands .are noticed as in the irrigated area by the State Government but the notification is not the final determining point. Notification is made on consideration of the fact that in fact the land irrigated or the State Govt. is of the view that it is capable of being irrigated, only then the State Govt. can make the notification, It is clear from the provisions of Sec, 4N that such determination by the State Govt. by notification is not final Sec. 14N lays down .that if any question arise as to whether any land is or is not within an irrigated area such question shall be determined by the prescribed authority in such a manner as may be prescribed. Sub-sec. (2) has provided for prescribing rules for the purpose of such determination. As I have indicated in treating an area as an irrigated area initially it has to be found that if this area is included in the notification made by the State Government for the purpose of Sec. 14K(d). If such a notification is made a raiyat is entitled to raise a dispute if the land within the prescribed area. If Such dispute is raised it has to be decided by the prescribed authority in accordance with rules 148. The manner in which the Revenue Officer as well as appellate authority has solely relied on a notification made by the State Govt. has ended in denying the raiyat a right to raise the dispute and get it decided in terms of Sec. 14N. An Order passed u/s 14N is also subject to appear u/s 14(o). In the instant case the orders passed by the Revenue .Officer as well as the appellate authority has deprived the writ petitioner of his right, u/s 14N and 14 (0). By virtue of the notification = referred to by the Revenue Officer it appears that the irrigated area under different project has been specified by the said notification. It will further appear from notification No. 595(15) GE dated 12..1,73 that the State Government directed the manner in which a dispute if raised u/s 14N has to be determined. Paragraph 4 of the said notification states that in some case it has been found that some areas within certain police station which have been notified as irrigated area do not get water from the Government Canals or state power driven tubewell. In such cases or in any other case where a question arisen or will arise whether any area which has been notified is an irrigated area is really an irrigated area or not, The SLRO concerned (who was prescribed authority at that time) shall hold an enquiry under the provisions of Rule 14R(2) in respect of the affected mouzas and after hearing the raiyat Concerned shall give his decision recording the reason therefor as to the notification referred to herein. It is, therefore, clear that the State Govt., itself admitted that even if it' has notified some areas to be irrigated some part of the same in fact may not be irrigated. it has directed the Revenue Officer to deal with such cases to determine the question in terms of Rule 148 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, Accordingly I find no justification on the part of the Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority to rely solely on the notification in determining whether the lands in mouza Sathkahania is in irrigated area. This question has to be decided by the Rev. Officer in terms of Rule 148. His decision will be a decision under Sec. 14N as it present Rev. Officer u/s 14T is competent to act as a prescribed authority u/s 14N. Such an order is an appealable order u/s 14(O).

(3.) In view of the provision of law as I have indicated above the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority on the question whether the land in mouza Sathkahania is within irrigated area or not is set aside. The matter will now go back to the Revenue Officer u/s 14T who will decide -the dispute in accordance with law as indicated above. After he has arrived at a decision he shall wait before passing a final order for giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner for preferring an appeal u/e 14(O). Thereafter he will finalize his order u/s 14T of the West. Bengal Land Reforms Act. With directions as above, this writ application stands disposed of.