Back
1975 Supreme(Cal) 350
High Court Of Calcutta
M.N.Roy, J.
Panchanan Paik
Vs.
State Of West Bengal
Civil Rule no. 511 (w) of 1974
Decided On : Dec 08, 1975
Advocate Appeared:
Apurba Lal Basu, Bhupendra Kumar Panda, Mrinal Kanti Roy, Paritosh Mallick, Snehangshu Kanta Acharyya, Subhas Saha
The authorization granted to a Junior Land Reforms Officer under section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for maintaining the record-of-rights does not empower them to record the names of Bargadars or revise the record-of-rights. Specific authorization under section 51 of the Act is required for such purposes.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Maintenance of Record of Rights - Junior Land Reforms Officer - Jurisdiction - Empowerment - Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Junior Land Reforms Officer recording the names of the respondents as Bargadars, alleging lack of jurisdiction and improper exercise of power.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Junior Land Reforms Officer was duly empowered as a Revenue Officer under section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but such authorization was not sufficient for recording the names of Bargadars or revising the record-of-rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Junior Land Reforms Officer was duly empowered as a Revenue Officer under section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955? 2. Whether the authorization granted to the Junior Land Reforms Officer was sufficient for recording the names of Bargadars and revising the record-of-rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the term "any" in section 2(12) of the Act and held that the appointment of an officer for any section would not automatically make them a Revenue Officer for all purposes of the Act. 2. The Court held that specific authorization is required under section 50 of the Act for maintaining the record-of-rights, and the authorization granted to the Junior Land Reforms Officer in this case was not sufficient for recording the names of Bargadars.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and issued appropriate writs.
1. IT appears that respondent Nos. 4 (a) - 4 (c) Nairn mondal, Raisuddin Mondal and Abbas mondal filed an application being Case no. 2. 2 of 1973 before the Junior Land reforms Officer, Habra, L. R. Circle, 24 Parganas, Respondent No. 2, against the petitioner claiming to be Bargadars and prayed for necessary recording. The said Junior Land Reforms Officer by Order No. 6 dated December 7, 1973 on consideration of the available evidence, allowed the said application. The said order has been impeached in this rule.
2. THE petitioners have alleged that they along with proforma respondent no. 2 Birendra Nath Mondal were and are owners of 2. 90 acres of lands and have been in khas possession of the said lands. It has also been alleged that they have cultivated those lands with the help of their own labourers along with other hired labourers and because of the fact of such possession, their names have been duly recorded in the finally published records. It has further been alleged by them that Ayub Ali mondal, proforma respondent No. 1 who is the father of the said Respondent No. 4 (a)-4 (c) was a labourer under them and the said proforma Respondent No. 2 for 1377 B. S. and he cultivated the lands in question along with some other lands at a total cost of rs. 600/- and the petitioners and the said proforma Respondent No. 2 have duly received the entire produce for the said year on payment of the sum as mentioned above. It has also been alleged that they have also cultivated the lands in dispute along with other lands for the years 1378, 1379 and 1380 b. S. It further appears from the pleadings that after the impugned order, the petitioner have filed Title Suit No. 551 of 1973 in the Court of the Second munsif at Barasat, for having the said respondent Nos. 4 (a)-4 (c) permanently restrained from disturbing their possession or from dispossessing them and in fact an ad interim order of injunction has been issued on December 12, 1973 and the same is still pending. It has been alleged further that even inspite of the said order the said Respondents forcibly took away the paddy belonging to the petitioners and for that they have also instituted criminal proceeding which is pending in the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate Barasat.
In the instant case the petitioner have challenged the determination as made by the Junior Land Reforms officer, as totally unauthorised and without jurisdiction as the said officer has not been specially empowered as a revenue Officer in terms of section 50 of the Land Reforms Act. In this view of the matter the petitioners have submitted that all acts done by the said officer and steps taken by him in the connected proceeding, including the passing of the impugned order were improper and void. The petitioners have thus contended that the assumption of jurisdiction by the said officer was improper and irregular, apart from the fact that the said order is also bad, void and against principles of natural justice inasmuch as in making the same, the said officer, without giving the petitioners an opportunity, has relied on a secret enquiry report by the tahasilder.
3. THE submissions of the petitioners have been contested by the Respondent Nos. 4 (a) to 4 (c) and 5 on merits and apart from that they have relied on two Gazette notifications which are quoted hereunder : (1) No. 9838-L. Ref.- 5th june 1967 (published in the issues of Calcutta Gazette dated June 22, 1967)"in exercise of the power conferred by clause (12) of section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956), the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint all Junior Land reforms Officers in each district within West Bengal to discharge the functions of a Revenue Officer under section 33 of the said Act within their respective jurisdiction. " (2) 24 Parganas - No. 11736-L. Ref,/8p-12/70-29th August 1970 (Published in the issue of Calcutta gazette dated October 15, 1970. "in exercise of the power conferred by section 50
