DHIRENDRA NATH GOLE Vs. REVENUE OFFICER HOOGLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question that is involved in this appeal is whether the disputed land measuring 36. 31 acres consisting of banana plants and a few mango trees is an orchard within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the act.

(2.) IN the proceeding under section 6 (1) of the Act, it has been held by the Revenue Officer that the disputed land is not an orchard, but an agricultural land and that the same has vested in the State. P. K. Banerjee J, has affirmed the finding of the Revenue officer and has discharged the Rule nisi out of which this appeal arises.

(3.) SECTION 6 (1) (f) of the Act provides for retention of orchards by intermediaries. Unlike other classes of lands, no ceiling has been prescribed for orchards. Again, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act, if any tank fishery or any land comprised in a tea-garden, orchard, mill, factory or workshop was held immediately before the date of vesting under a lease, such lease shall be deemed to have been given by the State Government on the same terms and conditions as immediately before such date subject to such modification therein as the stale Government may think fit to make. So under the proviso, the interest of a lessee of any land comprised in an orchard is saved from the operation of vesting. An orchard has not been defined in the Act nor has it been defined in the Bengal Tenancy Act. A lease in respect of an orchard is not governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the transfer of Property Act. In other words, an orchard is treated as a non-agricultural land.