JATINDRA NATH KAMILA Vs. JUNIOR LAND REFORMS OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a summary dismissal of the Appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by B.C. Mitra, J. There was an order passed against the Petitioner by the Collector of Midnapore dated June 10, 1966, for eviction under Sec. 4(1)(a) of the West Bengal Public Lands (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. From that order the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, which also had been rejected by the order dated January 6, 1967, which is at annEx. F to the petition under Article 226. Thereafter, he brought this petition under Article 226 in February 1967. The first ground relied upon before us in support of the petition was that the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Act in question are unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and on this point Mr. Samanta, on behalf of the Appellant, placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers v/s. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1581. On a perusal of that decision, which has later been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in another case under the Central Eviction Act, of a similar nature, it would appear that the language of Sec. 4(1)(a) of the Bengal Act is different from that of the corresponding Sec. 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1955, which came up before the Supreme Court in the cited case. Sec. 5 of that Punjab Act does not make it satisfied that the occupant is in unauthorised occupation but makes it discretionary with him to make an order of eviction under that Act or to relegate the State to a regular suit for eviction in the Civil Courts, by use of the word 'may'. In other words, Sec. 5 provides that - -

(2.) The second argument of Mr. Samanta is based on the first condition just mentioned, namely, that no bona fide dispute regarding title to the disputed public land exists. On this point, the case of the Petitioner, as disclosed in para. 2 of the petition under Article 226 of the petition, is that between the years 1951 and 1953 the Petitioner had purchased the disputed land by registered kobalas at different dates and since then he has been in possession by raising structures, etc. Unfortunately, however, this case has not been pursued with any amount of diligence as might be expected from a litigant before Tribunals vested with judicial powers and this negligence becomes more conspicuous by reason of the fact that in the revisional settlement there was no mention of the factum of possession or purchase alleged by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, since the Petitioner did not eventually appear before the Collector on the date fixed, the kobalas referred to do not appear to have been produced before the Collector nor did he produce them before the Commissioner in appeal. Even in the petition under Article 226 the dates of the alleged kobalas were not given nor were copies made annexures thereto. In these state of affairs one would have expected that the original registered kobalas should be produced before us at least to show that he had a prima facie case on this point to be investigated into by the Court under Article 226 of the petition. But that has not been done. On the other hand, a plain copy of one of the kobalas was shown to us by Mr. Samanta, which disclosed no sign of registration. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the summary dismissal has been unjustified. The appeal accordingly fails, but at the same time we may draw the attention of the Collector to the fact that the Commissioner in dismissing the appeal has made the following observation:

(3.) The Collector's attention is particularly drawn to the averment in para. 3 of the petition under Article 226 where the Petitioner has alleged that he has installed deities whose puja is being performed daily. If this be a fact and if this lies outside the road and its flanks, as is referred to by the Commissioner, it may be reasonably expected that the Collector would try to spare the deities, if possible and if the Petitioner -Appellant comes to reasonable terms.