A notice initiating a proceeding under Section 44 (2a) must provide a prima facie case for revision and furnish grounds for the same.

ANIL KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THESE five rules which were issued on five petitions under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution are heard together as they involve common questions of law. Facts are all same or similar. The first petitioner in each of these cases is the son of the second petitioner and the second petitioner is the same person in all these cases.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these rules are challenging notices dated October 24, 1968 purported to have been issued in a proceeding started suo motu by the Revenue Officer under Section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the proceedings started thereon. Notices are the same in all the five cases except as to the number of the proceedings and plots involved.

( 3 ) THE petitioners' case in each of these rules shortly is that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the land set out in paragraph 5 of the petition and that his name had been duly recorded in the finally published record of rights accordingly. That on October 24, 1968 a notice purported to be one under Section 57 read with Section 44 (2a) of the said Act was issued by the Revenue Officer; the notice does neither disclose unambiguously the purpose nor does it assign any reason or ground whatsoever. Petitioners in each of the cases were served with such a notice. Being aggrieved by such notice and the proceedings initiated thereon they have moved this Court with the above writ petition and are seeking to have those notices as also the proceedings based thereon quashed by this Court.

( 4 ) THE fact that the disputed plots are recorded in the name of the first petitioner in each of these cases in finally published record of rights having the necessary presumption of correctness has not been disputed by the respondents. The respondents also do not dispute that the impugned notice was issued on terms as set out in annexure A to the petition. This notice recites that for recording correct interests in the present revisional settlement for the purpose of preparing compensation rolls in respect of the zamindari and intermediary interests, it is necessary that' interested persons should produce the necessary papers, documents or statement of their interests and whereas the petitioners are persons who appear to be interested in the plots set out in the notice itself therefore they are called upon to produce on October 31, 1968 either personally or through an authorised agent a written statement of their interest together with necessary papers; the notice thereafter sets out the different plots and at the top it is described as a notice under Section 57 read with Section 44 (2a) of the said Act.

( 5 ) THE only question raised in all these rules by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners is as to whether such a notice can be said to be a valid notice in law entitling the Revenue Officer to initiate a proceedings under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act. According to Mr. Mukherjee, such a notice is not in accordance with law inasmuch as apart from the fact that such a notice does not indicate that a proceeding for revision of the entries in the settlement records is sought to be made by the Revenue Officer, it does not disclose any ground or reason whatsoever or even the nature of revision or alteration which is to be effected by the Revenue Officer in the proposed proceedings and the person to be affected gets no opportunity to know the case that he is to meet in such proceedings. This being the position Mr. Mukherjee contends that there can be no valid proceedings under Section 44 (2a) of the said Act based on such a notice.

( 6 ) AS pointed out hereinbefore the respondents do not dispute that the proceeding was initiated on a notice as afore- said. In the affidavit-in-opposition they have disclosed the order of the Revenue Officer dated October 22, 1968 on the basis whereof the aforesaid notice was issued. This order recites that whereas the disputed plots

Click Here to Read the rest of this document