Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manik Lal Chowdhury vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 16 November, 2009
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
1
16.11.2009
W.P.L.R.T. 170 of 2009
Manik Lal Chowdhury ...Petitioner
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal and others
... Respondents.
Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait ... For the
Petitioner.
Mr. Sitaram Samanta ... For the State
respondent.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Assailing the order dated 26th June, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench in O.A. No.3384/08 (LRTT), this writ application has been filed.
The impugned order reads such.
" 26.06.09 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that we should consider the application since the B.L. & L.R.O has not completed the proceeding started in Misc. Case No.4/07 following the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3685/05. Since this is an appealable order the petitioner is directed to submit his appeal before the appropriate forum. The appropriate forum will condone the delay if applied for and dispose of the case in accordance with law on submission of such application.
The matter stands disposed of.
Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Principal Officer of this Tribunal be made over to the Ld. G.R. for communication to the BL & LRO concerned for compliance and xerox certified copy of the order if applied for by the applicant/s, be delivered subject to payment of requisite court fees."2
It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the concerned B.L.& L.R.O issued a notice under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and as said application was kept pending, the petitioner approached the Tribunal assailing the silence thereof which led to pass the order by the Tribunal directing the said Officer to conclude hearing, but when the final order decision was taken, the said Officer communicated the order as an order under Section 51A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
Section 50 of the said Act is a proceeding for maintenance of the record of rights about the changes by incorporating those, but the said Section 50 will not apply to any district or part of such district when Chapter VIIA would be made effective for the purpose of revision or preparation of record of rights and the applicability of the said Section 50 will revive after final publication of record of rights under Section 51A of the said Act.
Section 50A reads such.
" 50A. Section 50 not to apply to certain Cases.- Section 50 shall not apply to any district or part of such district where Chapter VIIA has come into force for the purpose of revision or preparation of records-of-rights; but section 50 shall apply to any land in any such district or part of such district after final publication of any such record-of-rights under section 51A :
Provided that notwithstanding any order made under sub-section (1) of section 51 in respect of a district or part of a district, the State Government may make an order directing the Revenue Officers specially empowered under section 50 to incorporate such changes as may be specified in the said order in the records-of-rights in respect of such district or part of such district under section 50, if the State Government is satisfied that incorporation of such changes is necessary to mitigate the hardship of a raiyat."
Section 51A is the provision for Draft and final publication of the record-of-rights wherein there is an appeal provision. If any person is aggrieved by an order passed in revision under sub- section (4) of Section 51A, appeal will lie.
3
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that as the final publication was made so far as the record of rights is concerned under Section 51A; having regard to the provision of Section 50A, Section 50 revived for consideration of any application to record the changes in terms of the contingencies as mentioned therein. It is the case of the petitioner that after final publication of record of rights under Section 51A, as Section 50 revived, the petitioner applied seeking correction of the record of rights on the strength of acquiring title by auction sale in a court proceeding, but the concerned Revenue Officer though issued a notice under Section 50 of the said Act in terms of the application filed by the petitioner, ultimately passed a decision holding that the application was time barred. Assailing that order passed on 7th February, 2008 by the B.L. & L.R.O. concerned in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2007, the petitioner moved the Tribunal who refused to entertain it on the ground of alternative forum, the appellate authority.
From the writ application it appears that admittedly a notice was issued for physical verification of the land by initiating a proceeding under Section 50 of the said Act by fixing a date, 21st December, 2004. As nothing was done, despite physical verification of the land, the petitioner moved an application, being O.A.3686/2005 (LRTT), before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal and by the order dated 9th November, 2006 Tribunal directed disposal of said proceeding in respect of which the notice dated 10th December, 2004 was issued. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 9th November, 2006 reads such.
" 9.11.06 On hearing both sides we dispose of the application by directing the BL & LRO, Mandir Bazar, Dist. South 24-Parganas to dispose of the proceeding for which a notice dt. 10-12-04 was issued by the aforesaid B.L. & L.R.O. directing appearance of the applicants and the opposite parties there on in a field enquiry on 21.12.04 in accordance with law within a period of two months.4
Let a plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the P.O. of this Tribunal be made over to Ld. G.R. for communication to the concerned B.L. & L.R.O. for information and xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for by the applicants, be delivered on payment of requisite court fees.
Sd/- D.K.Chaudhuri Sd/- B.N.Das"
On that basis a Misc. Case was started, being Misc. Case No. 4 of 2007, by the concerned BL & LRO which, however, stood rejected on the ground that the application was time barred. The ground for rejecting the Misc. Case has been mentioned in the ultimate paragraph of the order dated 7th February, 2008 to this effect.
" But since the L.R. record of right, relating to the subject land have been finally published under Sec.51A(4) of W.B.L.R.Act, 1955, at this stage, I drop this Misc. Case on the ground that it is heavily time barred to pass any order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties interested.
Hence this case is dropped without passing any order as to the title of the land in question."
Having regard to the tenor of the order, we are of the view that the B.L & L.R.O was wrong to pass such type of order when there was already an order existing passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 3686 of 2005 directing to dispose of the proceeding initiated in terms of the notice dated 10th December, 2004. Besides such, after the final publication of record of rights under Section 51A of the said Act, as the Section 50 revived, we are of the view that there was no embargo to complete the proceeding. Since the B.L & L.R.O did not pass any order as it appears from the impugned order of the learned Tribunal below, the order of the B.L & L.R.O ought to have been quashed by the learned Tribunal below.
Considering that aspect of the matter, the order dated 7th February, 2008 passed by the B.L & L.R.O in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2007 and the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal, both stand set aside and quashed.
5
The Block Land and Land Reforms Officer concerned, the respondent No.4, is directed to complete the proceeding, being Misc. Case No.4 of 2007, in terms of the notice dated 10th December, 2004 on merit by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties and to pass a reasoned order on merit with reference to the application filed by the petitioner which became the subject matter of notice dated 10th December, 2004 within two months positively and a reasoned decision to be communicated to the petitioner within a month therefrom.
The writ application is accordingly allowed.
Affidavit of Service filed in Court today be kept on record.
Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) I agree.
(Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)