DINANATH BAIDYA Vs. REVENUE OFFICER, MATHURAPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule the petitioner has challenged barga praman patra issued by the respondent No. 1 the Revenue Officer in favour of private respondent no. 7. The petitioner's case in brief is that he is owner in possession of land appertaining to khatian no. 3329 of mouza Jillachat. He purchased the property by a kobala dt. 15.12.80 from the recorded owners. His predecessor-in-interest were not in khas possession of the property when the same was transferred in his favour. Respondent no. 7 tried to create disturbances in possession of the petitioner as a result he filed an application under section 144 Cr. P.C. and in the said proceeding an order of injunction was passed in his favour restraining the private respondents from entering into the lands of the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 Junior Land Reforms Officer was directed to enquire and submit a report. His report showed that the petitioner was in possession of the lands. With police help he cultivated the land during last cultivation season. Respondent no. 1 the Revenue Officer illegally and surreptitiously without initiating any proceeding and without serving any notice on him issuing a barga certificate in favour of respondent no. 7 and on the strength of the said certificate respondent no. 7 is trying to create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. His further case is that the petitioner never inducted the said respondent as bargadar on the land in question. There was no basis for issuing any barga certificate in his favour.

(2.) Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Chapter VII of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act did not empower the Revenue Officer to grant any barga certificate in favour of any bargadar. The rule which authorises issue of such certificate in favour of a bargadar is clearly ultra vires of Chapter VII of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In granting the said praman patra the Revenue Officer has acted without jurisdiction. Recording of the respondent no. 7 as bargadar is also illegal. Under these circumstances he has filed this application and obtained the rule.

(3.) Respondent no. 1 Revenue Officer Mathurapur has filed an affidavit in opposition. His case is that Khanapuri Bhujarat Stage of preparation and/or revision of records started on 23.5.75 and was completed on 17.6.77. Thereafter operation barga was started on 25.10.78 and completed on 27.10.78. Notices for K.B. operation and operation barga was duly published. Respondent no. 7 Kanal Paik was recorded as bargadar at the stage of Khanapuri Bhujarat and accordingly barga certificate was issued after that stage.