Back
1981 Supreme(Cal) 31
High Court Of Calcutta
G.N. Ray, J.
Sachinandan Bag – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Officer Central Camp Panchkura – Respondent
Civil Rule No. 6302 (W) oof 1979.
Decided On: Jan 29, 1981
Advocate Appeared:
Jamini Kumar Banerjee, Mrinal Kanti Das, Mukti Moitra, Saktinath Mukherjee, Tabarak Ali
A Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has no authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and relevant Rules framed there under.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Revision of Record of Rights - Authority - Revenue Officer with Additional Designation of Settlement Officer - West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, Section 51 - West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1956, Rule 22, Schedule 'A' - A Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has no authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the Act and relevant Rules framed there under.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the initiation of a proceeding for further revision of a record-of-rights prepared upto the stage of attestation by inserting the name of respondent No. 4 as bargadar. The petitioner contended that under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, steps for preparation and or revision of the record -of -rights was taken by the se element authorities and various stages for the preparation of record of rights in respect of the disputed lands have also been completed. After following the procedures as laid down in Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules read with Schedule 'a' there under, the record -of -rights in respect of the disputed lands was attested by the competent Revenue Officer authorised under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on March 4,1977 and, in such record -of- rights the names of the petitioners; were recorded as Raiyats. But there; was no barga recording in the said attested record -of -rights in favour of any person or in favour of the said respondent; No. 4. The petitioners contend that subsequently the petitioners were surprised to receive a notice from the Revenue Officer, Centralised Camp, Panskura dated June 23, 1979 that the respondent No., 4 Satish Chandra Manna had made an: application and an enquiry would be; held for the purpose of recording barga in his favour on the basis of the said application. The petitioner contends that initiation of such enquiry proceed -ding by the Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 of the West Bengal, Land Reforms Act for recording barga, after the attestation of the record -of -rights, was illegal and without jurisdiction and, the petitioner prays that the; said proceeding should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has no authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the Act and relevant Rules framed there under. The Court further held that the impugned proceeding initiated by the Revenue Officer being Misc. Case No. 357 of 1959 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the said proceeding is quashed and all findings and/or order made pursuant to such proceeding are also quashed.
Issues: Whether a Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has the authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the Act and relevant Rules framed there under.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1956 to hold that a Revenue Officer not having the additional designation of Settlement Officer has no authority to further revise the attested copies of the record of rights when such attested record has been prepared under section 51 of the Act and relevant Rules framed there under.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned proceeding initiated by the Revenue Officer being Misc. Case No. 357 of 1959 and all findings and/or order made pursuant to such proceeding.
1. IN this Rule, the petitioner challenges the legality and -or validity of the initiation of a proceeding for further revision of a record -of -rights prepared upto the stage of attestation by inserting the name of respondent No. 4 as bargadar. The petitioner contends that under- section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, steps x for preparation and or revision of the record -of -rights was taken by the se element authorities and various stages for the preparation of record of rights in respect of the disputed lands have also been completed. After following the procedures as laid down in Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules read with Schedule 'a' there under, the record -of -rights in respect of the disputed lands was attested by the competent Revenue Officer authorised under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on March 4,1977 and, in such record -of- rights the names of the petitioners; were recorded as Raiyats. But there; was no barga recording in the said attested record -of -rights in favour of any person or in favour of the said respondent; No. 4. The petitioners contend that subsequently the petitioners were surprised to receive a notice from the Revenue Officer, Centralised Camp, Panskura dated June 23, 1979 that the respondent No., 4 Satish Chandra Manna had made an: application and an enquiry would be; held for the purpose of recording barga in his favour on the basis of the said application. The petitioner contends that initiation of such enquiry proceed -ding by the Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 of the West Bengal, Land Reforms Act for recording barga, after the attestation of the record -of -rights, was illegal and without jurisdiction and, the petitioner prays that the; said proceeding should be quashed. This Court issued a Rule on the said application and passed an interim order to the effect that the proceeding for recording of barga on the basis of the said notice might: continue but no final order should be passed.
2. AT the hearing of the Rule, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing For the petitioners contend that under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, a record of -rights can be revised and/or prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 22 read with Schedule 'a' there under. Mr. Banerjee contends that various stages for preparation of the record -of -rights have been gone into and after necessary,enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the record -of -rights was attested by the Revenue Officer empowered under section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It may be noted in this connection that copies of such attested records have been annexed to the writ petition being Annexures 'at and 'a2 Mr. Banerjee contends that when such attestation has been, made, the Revenue Officer empowered under Section 51 is bound to publish the Draft Record -of -Rights in accordance with Rule 24 of the Rules and if anybody has any objection in respect of any entry or entries upto the stage of draft record -of -rights, he can file objection within the prescribed period. Mr. Banerjee contends that in appropriate cases under schedule 'a' of Rule 22, a Revenue Officer who has been appointed with additional designation of Settlement Officer, can either on his own motion or on receipt of applications from others at any time before the final publication of the record -of -rights direct-" (i) that any portion of the proceedings in respect of the revision or preparation of the record -of -rights of any District or part thereof shall be cancelled and that such proceedings shall be carried out de novo from such stage as he may direct. No notice of such cancellation, whether on own motion or on application, shall be required to be given, or shall be deemed to have been required to be given but before proceedings are carried out de novo from the stage as may be directed, a proclamation by beat of drums of the proposed proceedin
