Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 392 (CAL)

Gour Mohan Sahoo v. State of West Bengal

1977-12-13

SALIL KUMAR DATTA

body1977
JUDGMENT Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. In this Rule the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Bhagchas Officer, Nayagram at Kharika Mathani on 2.12.1972 recording that Sri Karuna Nidhan Saren is the Bargadar of Plots 83 and 99 consisting 1.16 acres and 0.21 acres of land respectively of Mouza Sonamukhi. The order further records as follows:- "Inform B. Camp Officer to take U/s 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 1st Copy of F.P.R.O.R. of this office is noted accordingly. This order, as already stated, is signed by the Bhagchas Officer of the place. In this Rule the petitioner is challenging this order contending that the Revenue Officer, especially empowered by the State Government in this behalf can maintain up-to-date in the prescribed manner the village Record-of-Rights by incorporating therein the changes on account of, inter alia, alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example by a Bargadar." 2. It appears from Memo. No. 18098 (10) GE/824/71 dated 6.12.1971 issued by the Board of Revenue of the Government of West Bengal, GE Branch 'A' Section that in respect of recording of Bargadars in the record-of-rights a procedure has been laid down which is as follows:- "On receipt of a petition from an unrecorded bargadar to have his name recorded, the Junior Land Reforms Officer shall immediately hold an enquiry and if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, he is satisfied that the applicant is a bargadar, enter his name in the copy of the Record-or-Rights. He shall simultaneously send the information to the Settlement Camp concerned for recording the name in the original copy of the Records-of-Rights under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act." 3. In this instant case the enquiry appears to have not been made by the Bhagchas Officer and we have not been shown any document to hold that he is the officer duly authorised to take action on the application filed by an unrecorded Bargadar. Further the copy of the application, as it appears, was served on the petitioner on 28.11.1972 while his case was fixed for hearing on 29.11.1972. As he was absent on that date the Bhagchas Officer, solely for this reason, passed the order as noted above. Further the copy of the application, as it appears, was served on the petitioner on 28.11.1972 while his case was fixed for hearing on 29.11.1972. As he was absent on that date the Bhagchas Officer, solely for this reason, passed the order as noted above. This seems to be an order not in accordance even with the Memo of the Board of Revenue as no enquiry appears to have been made by the Bhagchas Officer even if he is deemed to be the duly authorised officer for the purpose. 4. Further the B. Camp Officer does not appear to be a person duly authorised to make the necessary alterations in the Record-of-Rights under section 50 of the Land Reforms Act. Under section 50 it is only the Revenue Officer especially empowered who is entitled to maintain up-to-date in the prescribed manner the village Record-of-Rights by incorporating, inter alia, the name on account of alteration in the mode of cultivation, for example by a Bargadar. The Junior Land Reforms Officer was not competent to do so under the provisions of section 50 of the Act. It however, appears that by Notification No. 20478-L. Referred dated Calcutta, the 21.8.1975 the following order was passed:- "In exercise of the power conferred by clause (12) of section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956), the Governor is pleased hereby to appoint all Junior Land Reforms Officer in the State of West Bengal to discharge, within their respective jurisdictions, the functions of a Revenue Officer under Section 50 of the said Act. (2) In exercise of the power conferred by Section 50 of the said Act, the Governor is further pleased hereby to especially empower the said Revenue Officers for the purposes of the said section." 5. It would appear therefore that all the Junior Land Reforms Officer of the State who are thereby to be deemed as Revenue Officer in view of section 2(12) have been especially empowered with the power of a Revenue Officer to discharge within their respective jurisdictions the functions of the Revenue Officer under section 50 of the said Act. Accordingly, as on and from that date it can be said that the Junior Land Reforms Officer having jurisdiction over the area is the competent person to take steps under section 50 of the Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, as on and from that date it can be said that the Junior Land Reforms Officer having jurisdiction over the area is the competent person to take steps under section 50 of the Land Reforms Act. In the instant case when the order was passed on 2.12.1972 informing the B. Camp Officer to take action under section 50 of the Act, there was no such authorization to the Bhagchas officer to exercise the powers of the Revenue Officer under section 50, nor could the Bhagchas officer be deemed to be the Revenue officer. 6. Accordingly, in any event, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Rule accordingly is made absolute. The impugned order as also the proceeding dated 2.12.1972 in Case No.41 of 1972-73 before the Bhagchas Officer of the place is quashed. let appropriate writ issue accordingly. 7. The application filed by the person claiming to be the Bargadar may be placed before the appropriate authority for its disposal in accordance with law.