DILIP ROY Vs. BISHNUPRIYA DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the appellant-petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment dated 8th Dec., 1986 by which F.M.A.T. No. 1741 of 1986 was disposed of by this Court.

(2.) It may be noted that the respondent No. 1, Sm. Bishnupriya Devi instituted a writ proceeding before this court by making an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the order of settlement of the disputed land in favour of the appellant passed under the West Bengal (Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisan and Fisherman) Act, 1975. By the aforesaid order it was directed that the appellant would got the settlement of the said land in dispute as an artisan under the said Act. It may be noted that prior to passing of the said order of settlement under the said Act in favour of the appellant, the respondent-writ petitioner Sm. Bishnupriya Devi had filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from a pucca house stated to have been constructed on the said land by her. It was the case of the respondent writ petitioner that she being the owner" of the land in question, had constructed a pucca house and had let out the same to the appellant, but as the appellant failed and neglected to pay any rent to the writ petitioner, a suit for eviction was duly instituted by her in the court of learned Munsif, Jhargram and the said suit was decreed. While the execution proceeding of the decree passed in the said ejectment suit was pending, the appellant made an application for settlement of the disputed land under the aforesaid Act and as aforesaid an order was passed by the concerned authority and the propriety and correctness of such order passed under the said Act was challenged by the writ petitioner respondent before this court and the said writ petition was allowed by the learned trial Judge inter alia on the finding that when the purported order was passed, the said land was situated well within the municipal limits of Jhargram Municipality and as such the Act had.no manner of application to the land in dispute. The appellant thereafter preferred the instant appeal and the Appeal Court also dismissed the said appeal on 8th Dec., 1986, upholding the finding of the learned trial Judge.

(3.) In the instant application for review it has been contended that the decision of the Court of Appeal was erroneous on the face of it because the appellant being in possession of the disputed land on 26th June, 1975 under section 4 of the said Act and being eligible to get settlement of the said land under the Act, the land in possession of the appellant had stood acquired by the State Government and had thereupon stood transferred and recorded in favour of the occupier of the said land. Accordingly, subsequent inclusion pf the said land within the Jhargram Municipality was of no consequence.