JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioners challenges an order dated 22^nd September, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (WBLRTT), whereby the Tribunal refused to interfere with an order of the Revenue Officer dated 27^th July, 1995 passed under Section 14T (3A) of the WBLR Act of 1955 in suo moto proceedings no. 1/14T(3A)/LR/HK/Suo/95.

2. The case of the petitioner in summary is as follows.

3. The present writ petitioners are the legal heirs of one Surat Ali Biswas, the applicant before the Tribunal. He was the son of one Jahar Ali Biswas, the original land owner.

4. It is submitted that as on 30th October, 1985, in a proceeding before the Revenue Officer, Hanskhali, Nadia, the said Surat Ali Biswas had declared that his father died in the year 1967. As a consequence whereof the petitioners Surat Ali Biswas, would have been entitled to the entire land holding of his father Jahar Ali Biswas which comprised in about 38.08 acre.

5. In essence in the first proceeding the Revenue Officer held that the mischief under Section 14P of the WBLR Act, 1955 would not be attracted in the case of the petitioner. Consequently no part of the land holding of the said Jahar Ali Biswas could vest in the State.

6. It was subsequently discovered that by the Revenue Authorities that the petitioners perpetrated of fraud on the State. The fraud was a wrongful declaration on the death of the petitioner’s father Jahar Ali Biswas. Jahar Ali Biswas actually died in the year 1974.

7. A suo moto proceedings under Section 14 T(3A) was taken out by the Revenue Officer, Hanskhali, Nadia District. After due proceedings under the Act, 1955, and the Rules frames thereunder. The Revenue Officer held that Jahar Ali Biswas was a single person without a family. The existence of the alleged third wife of Jahar Ali Biswas, namely, Kahel Banu and the petitioner Surat Ali Biswas was also excluded from the scope of family on the ground that he had, land registered in his favour. The benefit of Section 14 P (3) was also denied to the petitioner.

8. Based on the above, the Revenue Officer held that the Jahar Ali Biswas is entitled to land to the extent of 8.65 acres and the rest of property would vest in the State.

9. Upon the order of the Revenue Officer being challenged before the LRTT in TA 1106 of 2000, the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 22^nd September 2000 refused to accept the contentions of the writ petitioners and hence the instant writ petition.

10. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Debnath Ghosh, has argued as follows before this court:

a. The expression definition of family under Section 14 KC of the Act of 1955 would kick in favour of the petitioner since (i) Jahar Ali Biswas had at the time of his death in 1974, a surviving wife called Kahel Banu. (ii) the petitioner was the son of the Jahar Ali Biswas. He in fact had some land in his favour which he had disposed of in the year 1970.

b. It is further argued that the Revenue Officer could not have suo moto reopened the original finding in the first case dated 30th October, 1985 beyond a period of three years therefrom. Reliance is placed in this regard in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dibakar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 626.

c. In course of this proceeding the petitioners filed CAN 9698 of 2019, inter alia, complaining that the land originally belonging to his father that vested in the State was being constantly transferred and re-transferred in favour of the third parties. The nature and character of some lands have also been converted. It is also argued that even the entitlement of the petitioner even as declared by the Revenue Officer was not being given to him. There is encroachment and transfer of such properties as well. An order of status quo and injunction was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 08.11.2000.

11. The State was directed to file the affidavit in opposition to the said CAN application which is placed before this Court.

1