Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 728
High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Samanta, Tapen Sen
DIBAKAR MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. L. R. T. 259 Of 2006
Decided On : 11/23/2006
INDRAJIT SEN, SITARAM SAMANTA, Uttiya Ray
The Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to review a proceeding for determination of the ceiling of lands to be retained by a petitioner must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time, and a notice issued under this provision must disclose the reasons for review.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Ceiling Limit - Review of Proceeding - Suo Moto Power - Limitation - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Section 14T (3A) - Notice issued by Revenue Officer for review of proceeding for determination of ceiling of lands to be retained by petitioner - Held, notice vague and does not disclose reasons for review - Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time - Notice quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Revenue Officer under Section 14T (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, seeking to review a proceeding for determination of the ceiling of lands to be retained by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the notice was vague and did not disclose the reasons for review, and that the Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) was subject to a reasonable time limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice issued by the Revenue Officer was vague and did not disclose the reasons for review, and that the Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time. The court further held that the notice quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued by the Revenue Officer was vague and did not disclose the reasons for review? 2. Whether the Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was subject to a reasonable time limit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice issued by the Revenue Officer was vague and did not disclose the reasons for review, as it did not specify which lands, if any, were not taken into consideration for forming the earlier opinion by the Revenue Officer, or the reasons for which those lands were treated as belonging to the family members of the petitioner. 2. The court held that the Revenue Officer's power under Section 14T (3A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time, and that in the present case, the notice was issued more than three years after the finality was reached on the issue of the ceiling limit of the lands to be retained by the petitioner, and no facts or circumstances were disclosed in the notice to justify the delay.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and quashed the impugned notice issued by the Revenue Officer.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 22nd march, 2006 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal upholding the authority of the Revenue Officer for issuing, the notice for review of the proceeding for determination of the ceiling of lands to be retained by the writ petitioner which was finally disposed of earlier by the Revenue Officer itself.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case as pleaded are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of 6. 84 acres of agricultural land including home-stead situated at Mouza-Baropalasan and Dihipalasan under P. S. Memari in the district of Burdwan. His wife is also the owner and possessor of 4. 67 acres of land. All such lands are duly recorded in the R. S. Record of Right in the names of the petitioner and his wife. For the purpose of retention of lands, the family of the petitioner comprised of four members on the relevant date, such as the petitioner, his wife and his two unmarried daughters. Two other adult sons who are the owners and possessor of their respective lands as being separate raiyats are not included as the family members of the writ petitioner for the purpose of retention of lands under Chapter II-B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
( 3 ) PURSUANT to the relevant provisions of Chapter II-B of the said Act, a proceeding being 7a case No. 59 of 1976 under Section 14t (3) of the said Act was initiated by the concerned Revenue Officer for the purpose of determination of the ceiling of lands to be retained by him. The petitioner appeared in the said proceeding and filed a return of his lands under Form 7a. The concerned Revenue officer on the basis thereof made a local enquiry and ultimately by his order dated 29th November, 1976 dropped the proceeding, by holding that on local enquiry it was found that the raiyat's family consisted of four members Including the raiyats and the raiyat did not come within the purview of Section 14t of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act.
( 4 ) LONG thereafter the Revenue Officer by his Memo No. 613 dated 23rd July, 1980 issued a notice for reopening of the said proceeding. In the said notice it was only stated that at the time of final disposal of the said proceeding for determination of the ceiling of lands to be retained by the writ petitioner, the lands held by the petitioner's family and the number of his family members were not properly determined.
( 5 ) THE said notice was challenged by the writ petitioner before the west Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal upon contested hearing held that the reasons assigned by the Revenue Officer in his aforesaid notice dated 23rd July, 1980 were cogent and reasonable. The Tribunal further relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (1994)1 Cal lt (HC) 235 (Pravat Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal) which held that a subsequent proceeding for redetermination of the question of ceiling limit of a raiyat by a Revenue Officer is quite competent, observed that there was no mistake by the Revenue Officer in issuing the said notice in exercise of suo motu power of review under Section 14t (3a) of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 for redetermination of the ceiling lands to be retained by the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
( 6 ) I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the reasons assigned by the Revenue Officer in the said notice dated 23rd july, 1980 were cogent and reasonable as stated earlier. It is only stated therein that the determination of the land and the number of family members of the writ petitioner raiyat were not properly made in the aforesaid earlier proceeding. The said notice has not disclosed as to why and in what manner the lands of the writ petitioner and the number of his family members had not been properly determined. The said notice also, has not disclosed as to the reasons for which the Revenue Off
