Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 460 (CAL)

DEBRANJAN BISWAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-06-27

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE

body2007
( 1 ) BY this application, the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 12th May, 2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application being o. A. No. 653 of 2003 has been dismissed. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the order of the Revenue Officer who refused to accept the case of the petitioner that he has filed return in B Form under the West Bengal Estates acquisition Act, 1953. Consequently order of vesting passed earlier was affirmed and retained and the case was not reopened at all. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the applicants before us, on commencement of the West bengal Estates Acquisition Act by operation of the law, vesting took place in case of excess land beyond the ceiling limit fixed under the aforesaid statute. In terms of the aforesaid Act, intermediary was supposed to file return in prescribed B Form. According to the petitioner, the vesting order was passed against the dead person. Initially no return was filed as the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to retain his land within ceiling limit. A civil suit was filed before the learned Munsif having jurisdiction over the matter, suit was dismissed and against the order of dismissal an appeal was preferred before the appropriate Court, viz. the learned District Judge. The learned District judge allowed the appeal and set aside order of the learned Munsif. The operative portion of the judgment and order of the learned District Judge set out herein, "that the appeal b'e and the same is allowed on contest but without cost. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif are hereby set aside in its entirety. It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs/ appellants have right to retain the suit properties by submission of return in B Form before the revenue Officer which they should do as early as possible, so long they do not part with the possession of the suit lands Revenue Officer shall give the appellants the opportunity of being heard after such submission of return in B form by the appellants and he shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law with the said return in B Form submitted by the appellants. The aforesaid judgment and decree was passed in or about 19th August, 1985. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the appellant filed return in B Form on 21st February, 1986. The aforesaid judgment and decree was passed in or about 19th August, 1985. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the appellant filed return in B Form on 21st February, 1986. In spite of submission of the said return in B Form, the Revenue Officer did not proceed with the matter. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by inaction of the Revenue Officer, the petitioner came with a writ petition being W. P. No. 7560 (W) of 1998 to High Court and the same was disposed of by this Court passing judgment and order on contest on 29th June, 1998. In this judgment and order dated 29th June, 1998 passed by hon'ble Mr. Justice Basudev Panigrahi (as His Lordship then was), His Lordship came to the specific findings that B Form was submitted in or about 1988 and no order was passed on those B Forms. After having found this, His Lordship directed the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, viz. Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, nowda and the Revenue Officer, Nowda to consider the representation, annexure-D as well as to dispose of the B Form submitted by the petitioners if not already disposed of in the light of the Civil Appellate Court's judgment within four months from the date of communication of the said order. In the said order status quo with regard to possession was directed to be maintained. After the aforesaid order was passed, the concerned Revenue Officer took up this matter for hearing on 18th June, 1999. It is surprising enough that Revenue officer did not consider the representation on the plea that there was no evidence with regard to submission of return in B Form, so his application was not decided at all. The learned Tribunal in its finding came to the same conclusion that B form returns as directed by the Civil Appellate Court was not submitted and the intermediary having been parted with the possession of the subject-matter of land. ( 5 ) MR. Jaharlal De submits that the aforesaid findings of fact are patently contrary to the findings recorded by this Court. In accepting his submission we find clearly when the High Court found that the B Form has been submitted, it was not open for any of the authorities to come to different findings. ( 5 ) MR. Jaharlal De submits that the aforesaid findings of fact are patently contrary to the findings recorded by this Court. In accepting his submission we find clearly when the High Court found that the B Form has been submitted, it was not open for any of the authorities to come to different findings. If the form is not to be found in the records for any reason, then its fault lies with the department. The judgment and order of this Court (Panigrahi, J.) has not been appealed against so the finding reached by His Lordship is a conclusive and binding upon both the parties. We hold, therefore, that the finding of both the authorities regarding submission of B Form is wholly erroneous and contrary to what High Court found. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside both the orders and findings. ( 6 ) THE copies of B Form have been annexed to this petition. It is observed that the B Form is not to be found in record. At least in 1998 the same must have been there otherwise the learned Lawyer for the State ought to have submitted before High Court that it was not there. When such submission was not made and when there is clear findings that B Form was submitted, B Form in original must have been misplaced subsequently, as the matter was taken up for hearing pursuant to the order of this Court only in 1999 and not before that. Accordingly, earlier order of this Court has to be carried out in all sense and spirit. We now direct the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nowda to decide the matter in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court in full sense and spirit taking note of the findings of learned District Judge being the Appellate Court on receipt of a copy of B Form to be supplied by Mr. De treating the same as original shall proceed in accordance with law. While proceeding with the same, if the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer found that quantum of the land which is sought to be retained has already been allotted to third party and consequently their eviction is required to be made, then they should be heard before any order is passed. While proceeding with the same, if the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer found that quantum of the land which is sought to be retained has already been allotted to third party and consequently their eviction is required to be made, then they should be heard before any order is passed. If it is found that the prayer for retention of the land is to be allowed, then order of vesting to that extent will obviously be recalled and has to be divested. In the event the petitioner submits a copy of the B Form within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, this must be decided within a period of three months from the date of submission upon hearing the parties in accordance with law. Till such decision is taken by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer as per direction of this Court, status quo with regard to possession of the land in question shall be maintained as on date. However, there will be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.