Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 246
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, Mahammad Habeeb Shams Ansari, JJ.
Sirajul Islam Ghorami & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.L.R.T. No. 178 of 2000
Decided On : May 16,2000
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Narayan Ch. Mondal......for the Petitioners
The Revenue Officer is the appropriate authority to enter the names of Bargadars in the record-of-rights under Section 21D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and Rule 14(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTIONS 21D, 50, 51, 51A, 51B, 51C - RULES 14(1), 21(2), 22 - SCHEDULE-A - REVISION OF RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - BARGADAR'S NAME ENTRY - REVENUE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Revenue Officer for recording the name of a Bargadar in the record-of-rights, arguing that the Revenue Officer lacked the authority to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that, under Section 21D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and Rule 14(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, the Revenue Officer was the appropriate authority to enter the names of Bargadars in the record-of-rights.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Officer had the authority to enter the names of Bargadars in the record-of-rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 21D and Rule 14(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and Rules to hold that the Revenue Officer was the appropriate authority to enter the names of Bargadars in the record-of-rights, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 51 and Rule 22 of the Act and Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application, upholding the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application challenging the Revenue Officer's notice.
Sinha, J.
A notice• issued by the Revenue Officer, Hasnabad, District North 24-Parganas was the subject-matter of an Original Application before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal. The said notice was issued pursuant to an application filed by Md. Afsar Ali Mondal praying therein for recording his name as Bargadar.
2. The learned Tribunal by and order dated 14. 2000 dismissed the said application in limine stating :
"It appears that the R.O. is duty bound to dispose of such application in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the application for quashing the said notice appears to be premature.
The applicants may very well appear before the R. O. concerned and state their case and wait for disposal of the said application filed by the respondent No. 10.
The Revenue Officer attached to the office of the B. L. & B.L.R. Hasnabad, District North 24-Parganas is directed to dispose of the Barga recording proceeding case No. 36/99 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants, in accordance with law."
3. Mr. Narayan Chandra Mondal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned Counsel submits that for the purpose of revision of record-of-rights by insertion of names of Bargadar, the Revenue Officer is not an appropriate authority as he does not have the additional designation of Settlement Officer. In support of the said• contention strong reliance has been placed to a judgment of this Court in (1) Sachinandan Bag & Anr. v. Revenue Officer, Central Camp, Panchkura & Ors. reported in 85 CWN page 383. In the said case, the only question raised was that in terms of Section 51 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for preparation and/or revision of record-of-rights and when for the said purpose various stages having been completed, it would not be prudent keeping in view the second proviso appended to Schedule-A framed under Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules that a very Superior Officer namely the Revenue Officer with additional designation of a 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 that names of Bargadars should be incorporated in the record-of-rights by the Revenue Officer subordinate to him after holding such enquiry in terms of Clause (ii) of the second proviso and such superior Revenue Officer can also direct for cancellation of any portion of the proceedings in respect of the revision or preparation of the record-of-rights before final publication to carry out proceedings de novo from such stage.
4. The learned Judge appointed Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee as Amicus Curiae and on the basis of his aforementioned -submission it was held :-
"It appears that in the instant case, the record-of-rights was attested on March 4, 1977 and the impugned proceeding for correction and/or for incorporating the names of the Bargadars was initiated sometime in 1979. It does not appear that there was any cogent reason for not publishing the draft record-of-rights within a period of about two years from the date of attestation. In my view, Mrs. Moitra is not correct in her submission that simply because the draft record was not published, the Revenue Officer empowered under Section 51 could revise the attested copies. It appears to me that the learned Amicus Curiae is quite justified in his submission that if a Revenue Officer empowered under Section 51 is allowed to revise the attested copy of the record-of-rights, then the very purpose of giving such authority to a Superior Officer namely the Revenue Officer is second proviso of Schedule-A will be frustrated and the rule making authority has not intended that such revision will be made by an ordinary Revenue Officer without additional designation of a settlement Officer."
5. The aforementioned decision was rendered on 29th January, 1981.
6. The question
