ABANI KUMAR PAHARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule an order passed by the Revenue Officer in a proceeding under Section 14t (3) of the West bengal Land Reforms Act being T. A. Proceeding Nos. 2 32 of 80 as well as an order passed by the appellate authority against the said order passed by the Revenue Officer is under challenge.

(2.) THE writ petitioner's case in short is that he is the owner in occupation of 12. 89 acres of agricultural lands, 1. 2 3 of fisheries, 1. 48 acres of non-agricultural lands and 27 acres of Orchard. He has transferred some amount of land to different purchasers prior to 7. 8. 69. Altogether he was owner of 16. 05 acres of agricultural lands and some amount of fisheries and non-agricultural lands an 152. 71. His further case is that sindhubala Pahari, respondent no. 7 was the, wife of his elder brother. She is owner in occupation of 5. 44 acres of agricultural lands. She filed a suit for maintenance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Midnapore out of the income of the properties of her. deceased husband. The suit was decreed on compromise. In terms of the said compromise the petitioner pxcuted a Registered Deed on 10. 10. 53. , By the said deed Sindhubala Pahari. was conferred life interest in respect of 5. 44 acres of land. She is in possession of the said property on the date of vesting and become absolute owner in possession in terms of the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. According to the writ petitioner she had a pre-existing right of maintenance over the properties left by her deceased husband accordingly, her life estate matured into absolute right by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Revenue Officer decided the case exparte and treated the land held by said Sindhubala as land held by the petitioner. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order, in the said appeal he raised mainly three points. First was that the lands; transferred prior to 7. 8. 69 cannot be treated as land held by him on the date of vesting. The second point was that the land transferred to said Sindhubaia Pahari cannot be taken into account in determining the total amount of land held by him. The third point was that his son was minor on the date of vesting and did not hold any land on that date. The appellate authority directed exclusion of the land transferred by the raiyat prior to 7. 8. 69. He further directed that the writ petitioner be allowed to retain 1. 67 acres of land out of the vested land measuring 7. 25. Regarding the interest of Sindhubala the appellate authority held that because of solenama filed in the suit her right, title and interest in the property have extinguished. Accordingly, he held that Sindhubala has only life interest in those properties and the revenue Officer was right in taking into account these lands a lands owned by the writ petitioner on the date of vesting. On the third point the appellate authority remanded the matter to the Revenue Officer for determination whether the raiyat's son was a minor on the date of vesting.

(3.) WITH regard to the second point viz. , whether the properties transferred in favour of Sindhu Bala can be taken into account in deter mining the total quantum of land held by the raiyat the Id. Advocate for the writ petitioner has placed his reliance on the provisions of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession act runs thus : -