Back
1972 Supreme(Cal) 275
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ANIL KUMAR SEN
SUBODH KUMAR MITRA - Appellant
Versus
REVENUE OFFICER - Respondent
Civil Rule 6996 (W) Of 1968
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 1972
B.Bagchi, SAKTI NATH MUKHERJI, U.C.Mallick
The Revenue Officer has the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act to revise the classification of plots in the finally published record of rights, provided that he has a prima facie satisfaction that the classification is erroneous and the enquiry initiated is not a roving enquiry but a specific enquiry to determine the true character of the disputed plots.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL ESTATES ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 44 (2A) - REVISION OF RECORDS - NOTICES ISSUED BY REVENUE OFFICER - VALIDITY - SATISFACTION OF REVENUE OFFICER - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - PREVIOUS ADJUDICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, tenants of a vast fishery commonly known as Bilbouchandi, challenged the validity of a series of notices issued by the Revenue Officer under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, initiating proceedings for the correction of the classification of certain plots recorded as tank fisheries in the finally published record of rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notices issued by the Revenue Officer were valid and the proceedings initiated thereunder were within the scope of Section 44 (2a) of the Act. The court found that the Revenue Officer had a prima facie satisfaction that the classification of the plots was erroneous, based on materials such as the previous settlement records, field survey records, and the actual character of the plots. The court also held that the enquiry initiated was not a roving enquiry but a specific enquiry to determine the true character of the disputed plots.
Issues: 1. Whether the notices issued by the Revenue Officer under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act were valid and the proceedings initiated thereunder were within the scope of the Act? 2. Whether the Revenue Officer had a bona fide satisfaction that the classification of the plots was erroneous? 3. Whether the enquiry initiated was a roving enquiry or a specific enquiry to determine the true character of the disputed plots? 4. Whether a previous adjudication under Section 44 (2a) of the Act barred the Revenue Officer from initiating fresh proceedings under the same provision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notices issued by the Revenue Officer were valid as they fulfilled the requirement of Section 44 (2a) by specifying the grounds for revision and were issued on a prima facie satisfaction of the Revenue Officer. 2. The court found that the Revenue Officer had a bona fide satisfaction that the classification of the plots was erroneous, based on materials such as the previous settlement records, field survey records, and the actual character of the plots. 3. The court held that the enquiry initiated was not a roving enquiry but a specific enquiry to determine the true character of the disputed plots, as the Revenue Officer had a specific ground for revision and was not conducting a general enquiry into the character of all plots recorded as tank fisheries. 4. The court held that the pleadings of the petitioners did not establish that there had been any previous adjudication under Section 44 (2a) on the same issues as raised in the impugned proceedings, and therefore, the previous decision did not bar the Revenue Officer from initiating fresh proceedings.
Final Decision: The court discharged the Rule and upheld the validity of the notices issued by the Revenue Officer under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued on a Writ petition wherein the two petitioners, challenging the validity of a series of notices under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued by the Revenue Officer 'c' camp Baraset, have prayed for quashing the several proceedings initiated on such notices. The proceedings are case No. 16 of mouja Kaipul, cases Nos. 26, 29 to 38 mouja Bilbauchandi and cases Nos. 131 to 138 and 143 to 147 of mouja Matiagacha.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners shortly is that they were the tenants in respect of a vast fishery commonly known as Bilbouchandi spread over the three moujas as aforesaid within Police Station Baraset. It is recorded in several khatians all recorded as tank-fisheries. After the vesting of the interest of the intermediary they became tenants of the State in respect of such fisheries. These being tank fisheries within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (e) of the said Act they are entitled to retain the entire area and they exercised their option accordingly. In the revisional survey records prepared under the provisions of the said Act most of the plots appertaining to these khatians were recorded as gheri mach chas or in other words as tank fisheries. Such was the entry in the finally pub lished record of rights. They further claim that these plots having been retain ed by them rent was assessed according ly and they had been paying rent to the State Government up to the year 1375 B. S. In spite of this position, the petitioners state, the Revenue Officer, camp No. 1 Baraset, the respondent No. 1 initiated a number of proceedings under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act by issuing a number of notices on September 7, 1968. Some of these notices have been annexed to the Writ petition marked as Annexure 'd' series. The notice recites that whereas on the examination of the khatians and on prima facie checking thereof it appears that the classification of the plots of the khatians is erroneous and does not represent the actual fact so the proceedings are initiated suo motu for its correction and the date of hearing has been fixed as on 23-9-68. Each of the notices bears a schedule of the plots and the khatians to which such plots belong of which the classification is claimed to be erroneous requiring re vision. These are the notices which are being challenged by the petitioners. They claim that no valid proceeding under Section 44 (2a) could have been initiated on any such notice and as such they are praying that the notices should be set aside and the proceedings should be quashed.
( 3 ) THE Rule is being contested by the respondents. Two affidavits have been filed by the Revenue Officer, Baraset and one by the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Baraset who is respondent No. 2. The Revenue Officer, Baraset in his affidavit has claimed that the disputed plots ap pertaining to the disputed khatians were not recorded as fisheries in the previous District Settlement. He has seriously dis puted the claim of the petitioners that in the last settlement these plots were described as Bilbouchandi fishery. He has admitted that on the return submitted by the petitioners and on the classification as it now stands the petitioners were allowed to retain the vast area covering about 368 plots. He further states that during the field survey these plots were classified not as gheri mach chas but merely as gheries; but strangely without any enquiry or any specific proceeding at the attestation stage these plots were recorded as gheri mach chas and the final publication followed accordingly. Such entry, however, is claimed by him to be wrong and he has stated in paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by him that the matter was brought to his notice in course of checking the finally published record of rights in connection with the work regarding modification of records under Section 47 of the said Act. It is thus claimed by the Revenue
