SUHAS C.SEN, G.N.RAY
Achutananda Baidya – Appellant
Versus
Prafullya Kumar Gayen – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.N. Ray, J.-In these appeals, the judgment dated July 15, 1986 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 1691-92 of 1985 arising out of applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment dated April 8, 1985 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Diamond Harbour in R.A.L. Appeals Nos. 19 and 20 of 1983, is under challenge.
2. There is no dispute that one Kamini Mohan Gayen was the owner of the lands in dispute. On June 1, 1968, the said Kamini Mohan Gayen had sold 0.60 cent of land to Achutananda Baidya the appellant in these appeals. The said Kamini Mohan Gayen also sold .60 cent of land on July 1, 1968 to one Sunil Kumar Mondal by a registered sale deed. The appellant Achutananda Baidya subsequently purchased the said 0.60 cent of land from Sunil Kumar Mondal. The successor in interest of Kamini Mohan Gayen, namely, the respondents in these appeals made applications under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Special Officer constituted under the Act for restoration of the said 66 decimals of land and 60 decimals of land which had been transferred by Kamini
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.