IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions and provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisan and Fishermen Act 1975 in determining the eligibility for the recording of homestead.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated September 23, 2022, passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A.2692 of 2019.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal negated the challenge of the writ petitioner to the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated June 20, 2019.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner purchased the immovable property in 2013. Prior to the purchase in 2013 proceedings under the provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisan and Fishermen Act 1975 were undertaken. Initially an order was passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O) which was assailed on appeal. The Appellate Authority, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. He refers to the order of the Appellate Authority dated March 29, 2017. He submits that, the criteria for consideration of the proceedings were laid down. Thereafter, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O, passed an order dated May 31, 2018 which was appealed against. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the concerned B.L. & L.R.O by the order dated June 20, 2019. This was challenged before the Tribunal resulting in the impugned order.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the various provisions of the Act of 1975. In particular, he refers to the definition of ‘artisan’ appearing in Section 2(a), ‘homestead’ appearing in Section 2(d) and ‘occupier’ as appearing in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1975. He also refers to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1975. He contends that, the private respondents being respondent nos.4 and 5 are in laws of so-called occupiers. One of them was not born on June 26, 1975 and other was a minor at that point of time. Moreover, they cannot be considered as occupier as on June 26, 1975 as one was not born and the other was minor. They claim to come into possession by marriage. He submits that, the ingredients under Section 4 of the Act of 1975 are absent in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, none of the authorities alluded to an order of vesting passed under Section 4 of the Act of 1975. He relies upon 2005 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes 235 (Mitali Goswami vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of is contentions.

5. State and the private respondents are represented.

6. Apparently, two applications were made before the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. invoking provisions of the Act of 1975. On the basis of such application, a proceeding was initiated. Initially, an order dated May 4, 2007 was passed by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O recording the land as ‘homestead’ under the provisions of the Act of 1975. An appeal was carried against such order which was disposed of by an order dated March 29, 2017 by remanding the issue to the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. Order of remand dated March 29, 2017 recorded that, it was to be determined whether the private respondents possessed any other landed property at the time of proceeding 42/07 and 43/07 and further whether the private respondents fulfilled the criteria to get homestead.

7. Subsequent to the order of the Appellate Authority dated March 29, 2017, the concerned B.L. & L.R.O on remand, initiated the proceedings resulting in its order dated May 31, 2018.

8. The concerned B.L. & L.R.O took the assistance of Revenue Inspector to make the spot enquiry. The Revenue Inspector submitted a report which was considered by the concerned B.L. & L.R.O while passing the order dated March 31, 2018.

9. We perused the report of the Revenue Inspector dated May 23, 2018 which is in the vernacular.

10. In the report dated May 23, 2018, the Revenue Inspector finds that the private respondents were in possession of the plots in question. It also records that prior thereto, the in-laws of the private respondents were in occupation of the land in question. In the report, both the respon