Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this W P under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated May 8, 2013 is alleging inaction on the part of the District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Bankura in that the officer has not decided his objection dated March 22, 2013 (WP p.69) to the officer’s demand notice dated March 5, 2013 (W P p.68). The officer issued the notice dated March 5, 2013 demanding surface rent and water rent for the periods mentioned in the notice. The petitioner submitted objections contending that in view of the provisions of the rules and the lease, the officer could not demand surface rent and water rent for the entire leased out land, but only for the portion occupied by him. He also contended that, on the facts, he was not liable to pay water rent. Besides, he disputed the correctness of the calculation. Since the officer did not give any attention to the objection dated March 22, 2013, the petitioner gave a lawyer’s notice dated April 9, 2013. Nothing could wake up the officer whose gross inaction has generated this unnecessary litigation. In the face of the petitioner’s objections the officer was under an obligation to determine the objections after hearing him. For unknown reasons the officer chose to ignore the objections and also the lawyer’s notice. This kind of inaction should be viewed by all concerned as a serious lapse on the part of a statutory authority. I think it will be appropriate to ask the officer to determine the petitioner’s objections immediately. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. After hearing the petitioner, examining all materials and recording proceedings, the officer issuing the demand notice shall determine the petitioner’s objections and give the final decision in the matter. No costs.