1983 Supreme(Cal) 155
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
C. MOOKERJEE, J.
Sadhan Chandra Samanta - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Decided on : Jun 10, 1983
D.K. Banerji, Ila Chatterji, M. Gupta, P.C. Ghosh, S.K. Ghosh.
The Revenue Officer is bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and give proper notice of enquiry to the persons concerned.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 3 - RECORDING OF BARGADAR'S NAME - NOTICE - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - REVENUE OFFICER'S DUTY TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - NOTICE TO BE ADDRESSED TO ACTUAL OWNERS - FRESH ENQUIRY ORDERED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the recording of respondent no. 5's name as a bargadar in respect of their share in certain plots. The recording was made during the revision of record of rights under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice of enquiry was not given in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The notice did not mention the names of the petitioners, who were the actual owners of the property, but instead mentioned the name of their father, who was the recorded raiyat.
Issues: Whether the notice of enquiry was given in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue Officer is bound to conform to the rules of natural justice in holding an enquiry under clause (ii) of the second proviso to rule 1 of Schedule A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. This includes giving the persons claiming as bargadars and the owners of the lands concerned an opportunity of being heard. The notice of enquiry must mention the name of the person or persons claiming as bargadars, the names of owners of the land concerned, the plot of land and the place and time of the enquiry to be held by the Revenue Officer.
Final Decision: The court directed a fresh enquiry to be held by the Revenue Officer in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965.
1. THE petitioners claim to be owners of plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. They have challenged in this writ application recording of the names of the respondent no. 5 as a bargadar in respect of the petitioner's share 'in plot nos. 526 and 527 R. S. Khatian no. 46 mouza Lalkundu. In the above view it is not necessary for me to record any finding about the ownership and the mode of cultivation of the plots other than plot nos. 528 and 527 mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The question or the question regarding recording of names of other - persons are accordingly left open. I also make it clear that in case the petitioners are owners only of part and not in entirety of plot nos. 526 and 527 this order will not affect the recording of the name of respondent no. 5 as bargadar, if any, made in respect of the shares of other person having remaining shares, if any, in the said two plots.
2. AT the hearing of this application it has been made clear that the instant recording was made by the Revenue Officer concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule A to the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. Thus, in the instant case the said entries have been made in course of the revision of the record of rights under chapter VII of the West Bengal Land reforms Act. I do not propose to decide myself. Whether in fact in respect of the aforesaid two plots relationship of owner and the bargadar subsists between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent no. 5 on the other. The said question may be decided at the first instance by the Revenue Officer and thereafter by appropriate authority in appropriate manner.
Upon a perusal of the records I find that in the instant case the notice of the enquiry in question was not given in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of the second proviso to Rule 1 sch A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The records indicate that instead of the names of the petitioners the name of their father who was allegedly recorded raiyat was mentioned in the notice published by the Revenue officer. The Revenue Officer is required to hold an enquiry in terms of clause (ii) of second proviso to rule 1 of Schedule A by giving the persons claiming as bargadars and the owners of the lands concerned opportunity of being heard. Such an enquiry is quasi judicial in nature. Therefore, the Revenue Officer is bound to conform to the rules of natural justice.
3. CLAUSE (ii) of the second proviso to rule 1 Schedule A no doubt dispenses with personal service of notices of the enquiry contemplated under the said clause (ii ). The Revenue Officer has been given power to publish notice of his intention to hold enquiry by affixing notice on some conspicuous part in the village or area in which the land so affected is situate.- Another notice is required to be served by affixing at a conspicuous place in the office of the Gram panchayat within whose jurisdiction the land affected is situated. When a publication is made in the above manner, by reason of the deeming provision contained in clause (iii) of the second proviso to rule 1 Schedule A knowledge of the persons concerned shall be imputed and it would be deemed that they have been given opportunity to be heard as required under item (ii) But publication of such notice must be in strict conformity with the said clause (iii). In my view, therefore, such notice ought to mention the name of the person or persons claiming as bargadars, the names of owners of the land concerned, the plot of land and the place and time of the enquiry to be. held by the Revenue Officer. Mentioning in the notice the name of the recorded owner who is no longer the present owner of the property would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of law.
4. MRS. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it might be difficult to ascertain the name of the owner upon whom the interest of the person recorded as rai