C. A. J.  798  Of  1972

(September 18, 1975)

LAKSHMI NARAYAN ROY VS. LAND REFORMS OFFICER

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 27, 1972 made in Civil Rule No. 798 (W) of 1972 by Salil Kumar Datta J. By the said determination the learned Judge has been pleased to discharge the Rule without any order as to costs and with certain directions regarding the appropriation by the State Government of the amount deposited by the appellant petitioner in case he was in possession of the lands in question.

( 2 ) THE appellant contended that at the date of vesting of raiyati holdings in the State of West Bengal under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, he held certain agricultural, non-agricultural and homestead lands apart from tanks. He contended that at the relevant time and during the pendency and operation of the Rule, certain returns under the said Act were duly filed by him. But in spite of such filing of returns he was served with notices and orders purporting to be made and issued under section 10 (2) of the said Act and rule 7 (1) of the Rules framed thereunder, by the Respondent No. 2, the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Suri, Birbhum. It has been alleged that before issuing them, the respondents never issued any notice giving the petitioner an opportunity of choosing his lands for the purpose of retention in terms of section 6 (5) of the Act. The appellant contended that the inclusion of the lands in the said notices was made arbitrarily, improperly and without regard to the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder so that the ultimate effect of the said notices was to deprive him of his right to retain agricultural, non-agricultural and homestead lands apart form tanks under section 6 (1) of the Act. It has further been alleged that verbal representations were made by the appellant but thereafter no action has been taken from him nor was he given due opportunity of filing a Return in Form 'b'.

( 3 ) THE appellant has alleged that sometimes in the last week of May 1967, he received informations that his lands would be settled with other people and on receipt of such informations he went to Respondent No. 1, the Land Reforms Officer, Sainthia, Mahammad Bazar Circle and applied for certified copies of the order sheet in the connected Case No. 152 of 1966 which was mentioned in the notices under section 10 (2) of the Act. It has also been alleged that instead of supplying the copies of the order sheet, the copies of the notices under section 10 (2) of the Act were supplied to the appellant. He has stated that on his insistence an on fresh application being made on June 2, 1967, a copy of the order sheet was supplied to him and from there it appears that the respondents purported to proceed on an alleged statement of surplus surrendered khas lands supplied by the Revisional Settlement Department amounting to 169. 98 acres. The appellant has asserted that he has not got so much of surplus lands and further-more he never surrendered the said lands and in fact no notice or hearing was given to him before determining which lands would e retained by him and which lands would be considered as vested in the State. He has further alleged that the action was illegal inasmuch as lands belonging to strangers and not to him have been considered as lands belonging to him. The action has also been challenged as being void, as non-agricultural lands have been treated as agricultural lands, as a result whereof only a small fraction of the permissible ceiling of non-agricultural lands has been treated as having been retained by him at the choice of the respondents without having allowed him to exercise his choice duly. The impugned notices under section 10 (2) will be found in Annexure "b" to the petition. The appellant has alleged that he had no surplus lands at any point of time and furthermore he has never surrendered them and in fact such a q