Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 407 (CAL)

MADHU SINGH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1991-08-30

HARIDAS DAS

body1991
H. D. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India made by the petitioners is directed against the order dated September 23, 1987 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore) in Revenue Appeal No. 2 L. R. of 1986. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as under :-in suo motu proceedings under section 44 (2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, (for short the Act), the Revenue Officer, Settlement Camp, India, Kharagpur passed an order on October 6, 1980 declaring that, several plots of lands having an area of more than 58 acres were the excess, lands of the owners being beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under that Act and accordingly treated the said lands as vested lands of the State of West Bengal. Thereafter pattas were granted by the concerned authority of the State Government purporting to make raiyati settlement of the said lands in favour of the petitioners and 64 others on October 13, 1980. The opposite party No. 5 and several others claiming to be the owners of the aforesaid lands on the strength of purchase by several Sale Deeds preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal appointed under section 55 (2) of the Act against the order of the Revenue Officer passed on October 6, 1980 alleging inter alia that notices of the proceedings initiated under section 44 (2a) were not served upon them. . The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals so preferred, set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer and remanded the proceedings to the Revenue Officer for fresh hearing and decision. Thereafter some of the owners including the opposite party No. 5 made application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar (South) Midnapore being annulment case No. 1 of 1984-85 praying for annulment of the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners and others. By an order dated October 29, 1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer annulled the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner and others holding that the officers of the Revenue Department had no authority to grant pattas since the order of vesting of the lands in question was held to be void by the learned Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated October 29, 1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer annulled the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner and others holding that the officers of the Revenue Department had no authority to grant pattas since the order of vesting of the lands in question was held to be void by the learned Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners and some others thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore) being Revenue Appeal No. 2 L. R. of 1986 against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed on October 29, 1985 in the aforesaid patta Annulment Case. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, by the impugned order dated September 23, 1987 Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have made the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) MR. Dipak Chowdhury the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of section 49 (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not complied with by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled inasmuch as notices of the annulment case were not served upon the petitioners and that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before the pattas were cancelled Mr. R. N. Bag, the learned Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No. 5 has submitted that after the order was passed by the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under section 44 (2a) of the Act, no possession was in fact taken by the Government. He has further pointed out that the order treating the lands as vested lands in suo motu proceedings under section 44 (2a) of the Act having been set aside, the impugned pattas, granted in favour of the petitioners were void and as such the Sub-Divisional Officer was quite competent to cancel the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Chowdhury the learned Advocate for the petitioners has in this connection pointed out that after remand the Revenue Officer again passed an order treating the said lands as vested lands of the Government of West Bengal and in that view of the matter the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the pattas was manifestly erroneous. Mr. Chowdhury the learned Advocate for the petitioners has in this connection pointed out that after remand the Revenue Officer again passed an order treating the said lands as vested lands of the Government of West Bengal and in that view of the matter the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the pattas was manifestly erroneous. ( 4 ) SECTION 49 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act inter alia provides that the State Government may make settlement of lands which are at the disposal of the State Government. Sub-section (2) of section 49 inter alia provides that the Revenue Officer may on his own motion or on any application made to him and after hearing the person to whom the land was settled annul the settlement if he is satisfied the such settlement was made by mistake or obtained by practice of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or otherwise. ( 5 ) IN the present case the order treating the lands in question as vested lands of the State was passed by the Revenue Officer on October 6, 1980 in suo motu proceedings under section 44 (2a) of the Act. The alleged possession after such order is said to have been taken on October 7, 1980. The pattas in question in favour of the petitioners were granted on October 13, 1980. Admittedly the aforesaid order of the Revenue Officer passed on October 6, 1980 was set aside by the learned Appellate Tribunal. That being so undoubtedly the lands in question were not at the disposal of the State Government so as to authorise the State Government to make any settlement of the lands by granting pattas to third parties. It appears that the opposite party No. 5 and others moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that case this court passed an order restraining the opposite parties, Government Officials from giving any effect or further effect to the proceedings under section 44 (2a) of the Act and from interfering with the possession of the opposite Party No. 5 and others in respect of the disputed lands. It further appears that the petitioners and others made an application under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Opposite Party No. 5 and others in respect of the disputed lands. It further appears that the petitioners and others made an application under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Opposite Party No. 5 and others in respect of the disputed lands. It further appears that the petitioners and others made an application under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Opposite Party No. 5 and others and in that proceeding it was found that the petitioners and others were not in possession of the lands. Again from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed in annulment case it appears that the Sub-divisional Officer received a report from the J. L. R. C. and acting on such report to the effect that possession was not given to patta holders, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the pattas holding that the authority concerned had no power to grant the pattas. It will also appear that subsequently another order was passed by the Revenue Officer for vesting of the lands in the State. But again opposite party No. 5 and others preferred appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal by an order stayed the operation of the vesting so passed by the Revenue Officer. From a consideration of the materials as disclosed from the records of the case it is therefore quite clear that after the original order was passed by the Revenue Officer no possession was taken by the Government in respect of the lands in question neither possession of the lands was delivered to the petitioners at the time of granting of pattas to them. It is no doubt true that section 49 (2) requires that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the person to whom settlement was made. Certainly in this case no notice was given to the petitioners before the pattas were granted in their favour. That is no doubt an irregularity. But such irregularity, in the circumstances of the case did not, in my view, result in any substantial failure of justice. ( 6 ) UNDER these circumstances I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is dismissed. ( 8 ) I however, make no order as to costs. Application rejected.