BANKIM CHANDRA MITRA Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this Rule is admittedly in occupation of a piece of land described as Fixed Demand Holding R156 since the year 1956 under a licence granted by the Divisional Forest Officer (referred to hereinafter as D.F.O.) Buxa Division, in the district 6f Jalpaiguri, with a permit for erecting a dwelling house on the land and also for carrying on a timber business. The licence originally was for a period of one year but renewable year by year. The rent per year was fixed at Rs. 23. The Petitioner thereafter constructed a house at a considerable cost and had been living there and carrying on business. The Petitioner paid rent thereafter in respect of the said land and the dwelling house at the rate of Rs. 23 per year upto the year 1962 -63. It appears that the rent was thereafter increased at Rs. 72 per year. It might be mentioned that the Petitioner also deposited a sum as security. On or about December 4, 1963, the Petitioner was asked by the D.F.O. to pay the rent along with 25 % compensation ; in default, it was stated that the holding would be cancelled and that; the arrangement for realisation of arrears would be made. It appears that the Petitioner made a representation, not in the record, by his memo. No. 21 (B.M. 63/64) dated December 8, 1963, to the D.F.O. possibly complaining about the increase of the rate of rent. The D.F.O. in his turn wrote back on December 18, 1963, that the Petitioner would "have to pay the rent including arrears as per assessment. Otherwise, action would be taken to realize the arrears if these are not cleared within 31.12 63." It further appears from the record that the D.F.O. wrote a letter to the Petitioner on April 17, 1964, in reply to the Petitioner's letter dated January 6, 1964, giving an account of the amount that is due by the Petitioner including 25 % compensation which alone gives a figure of Rs. 85 -97 P. The total sum, that was shown due was Rs. 429 -85 P., but the D.F.O. stated in the said letter (No. 3174/28 -7) that a sum of Rs. 363 was lying in the account of the Petitioner and the same might "be adjusted against the fixed demand rent. But before adjustment please deposit the balance amount of Rs. 64 -85 P. in cash to attached Forest; Rangar, Buxa Division, immediately." It further appears from the record that an application in the printed form was made for remission of rent on November 14, 1964. The said application was received on the very same date and a receipt is there in the record.

(2.) In this background just a week after, to be precise, on November 23, 1964, a notice was issued by Mr. N. Sarkar, Magistrate, First Class, Alipurduar, purported to be under Sub -section (l) of Sec. 3 of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (W.B. XIII of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the Petitioner to appear before him on December 29, 1964, and to show cause why an order under Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 4 of the said Act shall not be made against him. The Petitioner showed cause. The Magistrate by his order dated July 3, 1965, held, inter alia, that the Petitioner cannot; be held to be an unauthorised occupant only because he failed to pay rent for the year 1963 -64. In his opinion, the Act had no application in respect of the disputed holding." An appeal was taken against the said order of the Magistrate to the Collector, Jalpaiguri, giving rise to Appeal No. 15/4 of 1965 -66. The Collector by his order dated August 12, 1966, set aside the order of the Magistrate and further directed that the Respondent before him, namely, the Petitioner in the Rule, would deliver vacant possession of the land in question within 15 days of the said order. Against the said order, the instant Rule was obtained, inter alia, under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Mr. Chakravarty, learned Advocate, in support of the Rule firstly submitted that the Petitioner cannot be regarded as an unauthorised occupant and it should be held that the Act has no application so far as the Petitioner is concerned in relation to his disputed holding. He also placed before me certain terms of the agreement particularly he relies on terms Nos. 6 and 11 which are stated below.