Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 816 (CAL)

Badal Moyee Das v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-07-15

HARISH TANDAN, PRATAP KUMAR RAY

body2010
JUDGMENT Ray, J. 1. HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. LET affidavit of service as filed be kept with the record. The respondent no. 12 appears through learned Advocate. 3. LEARNED Advocate for the State is appearing representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 2(a). 4. THIS writ application has been filed assailing the order dated 30th July, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, First Bench in Case No. O.A. 47 of 2009 (LRTT). The impugned order reads such :- "30.07.09. - Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. He prays for correction of record of right in view of the deed executed in the year 1979 (3069/2879). It appears from the report submitted by B.L. and L.R.O. Chanditala-I, that the applicant did not take any opportunity of such correction in any stage of L.R. operation. Now, the Mouza is finally published. Now, as per provision of Section 51 A(9). Every entry in the finally published record of right be presumed correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. Hence, the petition is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum for consideration of his prayer". 5. IT is the grievance of the writ petitioner as raised before us that the land under Police Station-Chanditala, District-Hooghly, Mouza-Aniya, J.L. No. 24, R.S. Khatian No. 91, R.S. Dag No. 11 having an area of 17 Satak was standing in the name of Raiyat, Kaiipada Dutta, since deceased. Legal heirs of Kaiipada Outta, namely, Debu Charan Dutta, Sailendra Nath Dutta, Jagai Dutta, Amar Dutta, Gobinda Chandra Dutta. Kumari Manju Dutta and Srnt. Gita Ram Dutta sold the said property by a registered Deed of Sale executed and registered on 17th May, 1974 to one Shri Nemai Chandra Das, who is respondent No. 12 before us. Nemai Chandra Das subsequently transferred the property by a registered deed of sale dated 20th August, 1979 to the writ petitioner from the record it appears that legal heirs of deceased Kalipada Dutta, namely, Debu Dutta, Sailendra Nath Dutta, Jagai Dutta, Amar Dutta, Gobinda Dutta, Basanti Rakshit, Arati Rakshit, Jharna Kar and Asta Rakshit filed an application under Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 praying for mutation of names claiming, inter alia, inheritance of the property by law of succession. The Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding being Mutation Case Nos. The Revenue Officer initiated a proceeding being Mutation Case Nos. 1785 to 1793 of 2007 and passed an order on 4th October, 2007 allowing the entry of said legal, heirs of deceased Kalipada in the said property and separate Khatians were opened being Khatian Nos. 1367 to 1375. The concerned property under L.R. Settlement Record of Rights marked as plot No. 12. Though Debu Dutta, Sailendra Nath Dutta, Jagai Dutta, Amar Dutta, Govinda Dutta, Gita Rani Dutta and Kumari Manju Dutta sold out their properties to Nemai Chandra Das by a registered Sale Deed as aforesaid, they mutated their names by filing application. 6. HAVING regard to such state of affairs, it appears that there is prima faice a wrong recording made in the L.R. Record of Rights by opening new khatian numbers in favour of those persons who sold our the property to Shri Nemai Chandra Das on 17th May, 1974. It appears from the record that Nemai Chandra Das by a registered Deed of Sale dated 20th August, 1979, sold the property to the present writ petitioner. Smt. Badal Moyee Das. The petitioner filed an application praying for correction of record of rights on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 20th August, 1979 before the Revenue Officer who, however, did not pay any heed to such. Assailing the inaction of the Revenue Officer to deal with the issue in accordance with the statutory provision, namely, West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, an application before the learned Tribunal below was filed which was registered as Original Application No. 47 of 2009 (LRTT). Learned Tribunal below rejected that application which is challenged before us. The impugned order has already set out (supra). 7. HAYING regard to the factual matrix of this case and considering the relevant documents, we are of the view that the order of the learned Tribunal is not legally sustainable. Under Section 50 (f) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 the Revenue Officer is empowered under the statute to cause any change in the record of rights having regard to the necessity as to be mentioned by application. 8. Under Section 50 (f) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 the Revenue Officer is empowered under the statute to cause any change in the record of rights having regard to the necessity as to be mentioned by application. 8. CONSIDERING that provision, even if there was no objection raised at the time of draft final publication of the record of rights under Section 51 A,of said Act by the present writ petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid Sale Deed, but for that reason the petitioner should not be debarred to pray correction of entry of the record of rights and inclusion of her name in the record of rights on the basis of transfer deed. It is a settled law that entry in the record of rights neither vest any title to any party nor divest any title of any party. Having regard to the legal position, the impugned order before us is set aside and quashed. 9. THE respondent No. 2(a), the Revenue Officer, Office of the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Chanditala-I, Moshat, P.O. Moshat, P.S. Chanditala, District-Hooghly is directed to dispose of the application filed by the present writ petitioner on giving proper opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, respondent No. 12 and the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 whose names were recorded by opening different khatians in terms of the mutation case as already referred to, in the L.R. Record of Rights. Such disposal of the application be made within four months from this date positively and a reasoned decision also be communicated to all parties within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. THE writ application is accordingly allowed.