Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
142/2008 on 18 August, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
18.8.2011. W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2008
Mr. Abdullah Rahamani
.. for the respondent nos. 5 & 6.
_______
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Nobody appears for the petitioners.
Despite our order dated 15th July, 2011, no fresh Vokalatnama has been filed by Mr. Chaturvedi by taking no objection from learned Advocate-on-Record, Shri Bhagabat Chowdhury. Shri Chowdhury is also not present to argue this case.
Learned Advocate for private respondent nos. 5 and 6 is present.
The writ applications being W.P.L.R.T. No. 142 of 2008 and W.P.L.R.T. 143 of 2008 are taken up for analogous hearing in view of challenge of common judgement passed by learned Tribunal below on hearing original applications analogously arose out of challenge of orders of Appellate Authority under Section 54 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, being appeal case Nos. 1 of 1975 and 7 of 2005, respectively.
The matters are taken up for exparte hearing against writ petitioners.
By the impugned order, learned Tribunal below rejected original applications being O.A. No. 1202 of 2006 (LRTT) and O.A. No. 1484 of 2006 (LRTT) filed by present writ petitioners, by confirming the impugned order dated 21st March, 2006, being a common order passed in said statutory appeals under Section 54 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The reason to dismiss the original applications in the impugned order reads such:-
" Decision with reasons:
Undisputedly, the subject land originally belonged to Sk. Julfikar Ali, Sk. Sekendar Sonehar Bibi and Dolehar Bibi. Undisputedly again, they alienated by two registered deeds dt. 27.7.41 and 21.11.41 from the subject land of the predecessor in interest of the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2(g). The dispute arose whether by those two deeds, the land of C.S. Khatian No. 287 were also transferred along with the land of C.S. Khatian no. 322. Admittedly again, there is no mention about the sale of land of C.S. Khatian no. 287 in the deeds of 1941. According to the case of the applicants, though there was no mention about the sale of land of C.S. Khatian no. 287, from the extent of the land transferred by those deeds, it would transpire that also the land of C.S. Khatian no. 287 were transferred. According to the case of the respondents, there was no any authority to make any generalization by the concerned authority while considering the mutation cases and the only way was by filing appropriate civil suit or by executing rectification deed. We find that 76 decimals of C.S. khatian no. 287 has gone on being recorded in the name of the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 2(e) and 2(f) both in the R.S. and L.R. record of rights. Both the record of rights stood finally published and no steps were taken in accordance wit law for the rectification by way o filing objection at the relevant stages. The appellate authority has ultimately directed the authority below to restore the position of L.R. record of rights as per the R.S. record of rights and also the L.R. record of rights recording the name of the predecessors in interest of the above respondents so far as an area of 76 decimals of C.S. khatian no. 287 is concerned by undoing the effect of the mutation cases referred to above. The names of the predecessors in interest of the respondents 2(e) and 2(f) are 3 also found to be reflected in the L.R. record of rights in khatian no. 366 and plot no. 455 corresponding to C.S. plot 416 measuring 37 decimals and L.R. khatian no. 369 and plot no. 456 corresponding C.S. khatian 517 measuring 1 decimal and the name of Sekandar in khatian no. 1045and L.R. plot no. 455 measuring 36 decimals an L.R. plot no. 456 measuring 1 decimal. The appellate authority has found no reason to undo such recording by initiating in appropriate mutation proceedings and the reasoning advanced by him has commended to us to be quite reasonable and legally sound also.
In the above view of the matter we see no ground to make any interference with the impugned order dtd. 21.3.06.
The O.A. No. 1202 of 2006 and 1484 of 2006 (LRTT) are held by us to contain no merit and are accordingly dismissed."
In view of reasoning as advanced by learned Tribunal below by holding, inter alia, that in the concerned sale deed of 1949, the land under C.S. Khatian 287 was not mentioned as a schedule property and recording of land under said khatian in the revisional settlement and L.R. settlement finally made in favour of private respondents was never objected to by filing statutory objection under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act respectively.
Having regard to the reason advanced by learned Tribunal below, we are not finding any scope for judicial review of impugned order in the writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the writ applications stand dismissed on merit. There will be no order as to costs.
Interim orders, if any. stand vacated.
4
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the petitioners.
Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties expeditiously.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) I agree.
(Md. Abdul Ghani, J.) sks.