Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1238/2002 on 22 June, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
22.6.2011. W.P.L.R.T. No. 1238 of 2002
Mr. Lalit Mohon Mahato
.. for the State.
________
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Heard learned Advocate appearing for the State.
Nobody appears for the petitioners.
Earlier the matter was adjourned due to absence of learned Advocate for the petitioners.
In view of very nature of the order impugned and the absence of the petitioners, we are disposing of the matter on merit.
The impugned order dated 22nd August, 2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 359 of 2001 (LRTT)/T.A. Nos. 2319 & 2320 of 2000 (LRTT) by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal reads such :-
"22.08.2002. Heard the Learned Lawyer for the applicants and the Learned Government Representatives. Also heard the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mandir Bazar who appeared in person.
It has been alleged in this application for contempt that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Mandir Bazar, has not supplied the certified copies of the B.C. Case Nos. 1120 and 1121 of 1992 as directed by the Tribunal in its order dated 22.02.2001 in disposing of T.A. Nos. 2319 and 2320 of 2000 (LRTT). The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer in his written explanation has submitted that inspite of thorough search made by himself and his whole office staff the said case records are not traceable and tht is 2 the reason why he has not been able to supply the certified copies.
In the said two Transferred Applications the common order passed by the Appellate Authority in L.R. Appeal Nos. 13 and 14 or 1993 was challenged. We dismissed the same on the ground that since the copies of the orders appealed against were not enclosed the applications were incomplete. However, liberty was given to obtain the certified copies of he orders passed by the Revenue Officer and also to make a fresh application after enclosing the same. But since the said records are not traceable we treat the instant application as a fresh application directed against the order of the Appellate Authority in L.R. Appel Nos. 13 and 14 of 1993 without burdening the applicants with the task of filing fresh application true to the procedure.
The applicants purchased the subject land in 1980. Claiming preemption against such transfer of land in favour of the applicants an application under Section 8 was filed in the Court of the Munsif, Diamond Harbour. In the said pre-emption case the applicants (who were the preemptees before the Learned Munsif) took the plea that they had been bargadars in respect of the transferred land from before their purchase in 1980. To produce documents to substantiate their plea they hit upon a novel design. They filed applications in 1992 in course of the hearing of the said preemption case, praying for recording their names as bargadars. It is claimed that in the missing case nos. 1120 and 1121 of 1992, the Revenue Officer recorded their names prayed for. The impugned appeal nos. 13 and 14 of 1993 were preferred against the order of the Revenue Officer. The Appellate Authority set side the order of the Revenue Officer and allowed the appeal for the 3 reason that recording bargadars in respect of the land of which they are the owners is absurd.
We fully agree with the order of the Appellate Authority. It is apparent on the face of khatian no. 413-Kri, Chaitanyapur that the applicants stand recorded as both owners and bargadars in respect of the same plots of land. We affirm the order of the Appellate Authority. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, is released.
The Misc. Case No. 359 of 2001 (LRTT) is thus disposed of..."
On a bare reading of the order, it appears that writ petitioners who were the original applicants before learned Tribunal below assailing the order of the Appellate Authority arose out of decision of Revenue Officer recording their names as bargadars, were the owners and bargadars at the same time of the concerned land which is not legally permissible. Due to that reason, learned Tribunal below did not interfere with the order of Appellate Authority who quashed barga recording decision of Revenue Officer.
Considering the tenor of the order, we are not finding any wrong in the decision making process by which learned Tribunal below reached to the decision impugned.
The writ application accordingly stands dismissed.
Let this order be communicated to the petitioners by the High Court registry.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) I agree.
4(Md. Abdul Ghani, J.) sks.