Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Haripada Kayal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 March, 2015
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
4 27.03.2015
AB Court No.34
W.P.L.R.T. 26 of 2015
Haripada Kayal
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. H. K. Mahata ...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata,
Mr. P. B. Mahata ...for the State.
Mr. Hiranmoy Dutta ...for the Respondent No.3
Heard the parties.
It appears to us that the status of the Bargadar, namely, Arjun Das was already decided by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer pursuant to the Order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O. A. 2742 of 2012 (LRTT). By reason of the said Order, the Tribunal had directed the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sandeshkhali-I, North 24 Parganas to dispose of the representation after giving the recorded Bargadars and all other interested persons notice and opportunity of hearing and then pass a reasoned Order. This Order is Annexure -"P-2" at Page 39.
Pursuant to the said direction of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Sandeshkhali-I passed an Order in Case No. 3/Misc./SDK-1/14 on 12.02.2014. The Order-sheet dated 07.03.2014 shows that notices were duly served and service report was filed with the said authority. However, in spite of service of notice, they did not appear and, therefore, another notice was issued on 11.03.2014. These notices were also duly served as would be evident from the order-sheet dated 26.06.2014. On 04.07.2014, Haripada Kayal, being the present Petitioner, was present. One Bibhuti Das, son of the first recorded Bargadar, Arjun Das, son of Adwaita were also present.
Thereafter, the matter was dealt with in extenso and finally, the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer ordered that the cultivation by the Bargadars over the suit land was liable to be terminated under Section 17(1)(b) of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 and the names of the Bargadars were liable to be deleted from the Petitioner's Khatian No. 3798 against the suit plot no. 2287. Thus, the direction of the learned Tribunal made in O. A. 2742 of 2012 (LRTT) stood complied with by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.
Thereafter, one of the Bargadars, Arjun Das, who was present before the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, as referred to above, filed another application being O. A. 619 of 2014 (LRTT), which has been brought on record vide Annexure "P-4" and upon a perusal thereof, we find that the said Arjun Das totally and completely suppressed the passing of the final Order by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. Having suppressed these facts, Arjun Das (Bargadar), who was present before the authority, got an Order on 18.11.2014 in the aforesaid Original Application being O. A. 619 of 2014 (LRTT) in which, considering his submissions to the effect that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has not completed the proceedings, the learned Tribunal directed the said authority to conclude and dispose of the B. C. Cases, though pertaining to notices vide B. C. Case Nos. 38/09 and 47/10, within a certain period of time.
Learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.3, submits that these B. C. Cases were different cases and, therefore, had no nexus with the Order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer.
We are afraid that we are unable to accept such a contention because these notices were eviction notices and were obviously issued on the basis of appropriate applications having been filed in that regard by Haripada Kayal for their eviction.
It appears that Arjun Das, therefore, clearly devised and misused the machinery of law by going to the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, suppressed the facts and got the Order. We thoroughly deprecate the action of Arjun Das, which virtually amounts to playing ducks and drakes with the Court of Law.
As a result, we set aside the entire proceedings in O. A. 619 of 2014 (LRTT), which was initiated by Arjun Das by suppression of fact, which amounts to playing fraud on the said West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
We, therefore, make the said Order dated 18.11.2014 inoperative and allow this Writ Petition by granting the reliefs, prayed for, therein.
For the aforesaid conduct of Arjun Das (Respondent No.3), we impose costs upon him to the extent of Rs.1,250/-, which must be paid to the Petitioner within a period of ten weeks from today, failing which we give liberty to the Petitioner to move appropriate application in accordance with law.
As a consequence, the impugned Order dated 18.11.2014 is hereby set aside.
The Writ Petition stands allowed.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Tapen Sen, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)