Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushanta Kumar Mishra vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 August, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
01.08.2018
srm
W.P.L.R..T. No. 59 of 2018
Sushanta Kumar Mishra
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabindra Nath Dutta
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Chandi Charan De, ld. Addl. Govt. Pleader
Mrs. Sreelekha Bhattacharya
...for the State.
Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
This writ application is directed against a final order dated March 27,
2018 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, 4th Bench,
in the original application directing the respondent No.3 to conclude the
proceeding in BR Case No.S‐183/58 within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order, impugned to this writ application, after hearing all the interested parties in accordance with law.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that this matter has a chequered history as follows:
In the year 1988, the father of the petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this High Court for directing the 2 respondent No.3 to retain the disputed plots of land after surrendering equal quantum of land from his land which had been already retained. The above application was transferred to the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. It was disposed of by an order dated February 26, 2001 and the operative portion of the above order is quoted below:
"We, therefore, dispose of this application within a direction on the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Contai‐I, District Midnapore to review the B.R. proceeding No.S‐183/58 and allow the disputed plots of land to be retained by deducting equal quantum of land to be retained by deducting equal quantum of land from her retained land. Since she herself expressed her willingness to surrender the land, consequential correction in the record of rights and vested land register should be made without waiting for approval from any authority. The whole process should be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order and the applicant be intimated accordingly.
With the above observations, the writ petition being C.O. No.574(W) of 1988 along with the T.A. 2085/2000 is disposed of."
But the respondent No.3 sat tight over the matter. Consequent thereupon, the father of the petitioner had to file the second original application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in the matter of Satya Narayan Mishra vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [In Re: O.A. No.353/2003(LRTT)]. It was disposed of on May 13, 2003 with a direction upon the respondent No.3, once again, for disposal of the application of the aforesaid predecessor‐in‐interest of the petitioner in compliance of the order dated February 26, 2001 passed in T.A. No.2085/2000(LRTT). Since the respondent 3 No.3 did not dispose of the application of the predecessor‐in‐interest of the petitioner, he had to file the third original application bearing O.A. No.1880/04(LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The above original application was disposed of on August 25, 2004 with a direction upon the respondent No.3, once again, to treat the above original application as the representation of the predecessor‐in‐interest of the petitioner and to dispose of the same within the time framed in the above order.
But it is a matter of surprise for us to find out that the respondent No.3 did not comply with the aforesaid order. In the meantime, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of predecessor‐in‐interest. The above conduct on the part of the respondent No.3 compelled the petitioner to file the fourth original application which gives rise to this writ application. The above original application was taken up for hearing on March 27, 2018. The learned Government representative produced a report received from the respondent No.3 under Memo No.418/C‐1/2018 dated March 22, 2018 from which it appeared that the concerned big raiyat case bearing B.R. Case No.S‐183/58 was not concluded.
We are surprised to note that the learned Tribunal acted mechanically instead of applying its mind to the aforesaid conduct of the respondent No.3 4 while directing him to conclude the above big riayat proceeding within six months from the date of communication of this order.
In our opinion, the learned Tribunal being the Court of first instance should have applied its mind and taken an exception with regard to the aforesaid conduct of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Contai‐I, District Purba Medinipur in sitting tight over the matter ignoring and/or neglecting the orders passed by the learned Tribunal at least on three earlier occasions. We disapprove this conduct of the leaned Tribunal. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent No.3 should have been dealt with properly to prevent repetition of this type of conduct of harassing a bona fide citizen of India generation after generation while holding the post of a public servant and taking remuneration from the public exchequer.
Be that as it may, we direct the respondent No.3 to conclude the B.R. Case No.S‐183/58 within a period of 45 days from date strictly in terms of the order dated February 26, 2001 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.
It is submitted by Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader, High Court, Calcutta, that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer who had caused the inordinate delay in complying with the order passed by the learned Tribunal was not holding the post of the office of 5 the respondent No.3 on the date of disposal of the original application on March 27, 2018. According to him, the present incumbent who is holding the office of the respondent No.3 should not be penalised for the conduct of his predecessor‐in‐office.
We are of the opinion that the person responsible for harassing a bona fide citizen for two generations can be dealt with properly by this Court. In view of the above, this writ application stands disposed of in terms of the directions given hereinabove.
Let there be a cost of Rs.30,000/‐ (thirty thousand) to be paid to the petitioner from the public exchequer at the first instance within 45 days from date.
The Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, is directed to fix up the responsibility of the concerned incumbent who had been holding the office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Contai‐I, District Purba Medinipur at the material point of time and to realise the aforesaid costs from the money due and payable to him by the Government for discharging his function as a public servant. We further make it clear that if the incumbent concerned has already retired from the office of the public servant, the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, is directed to realise the 6 aforesaid costs from the said Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Contai‐I, District Purba Medinipur by way of raising a public demand expeditiously and in accordance with law.
If the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Contai‐I, District Purba Medinipur is still in service, let a true copy of this judgement and order be attached to his service book.
Let true copies of this judgement and order be served upon the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, as also in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General forthwith by special messenger of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)