Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 527 (CAL)

Biswajit Ojha v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-18

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. Admittedly, the petitioners are patta holders of different plots of land which were settled with them by the concerned authority as per section 49(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. They are in possession of the land settled with them by the concerned authority by grant of patta. Acting on the basis of the recommendation for cancellation of the petitioners' patta made by the concerned Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti, a proceeding was initiated for cancellation of the petitioners' patta under section 49(2) of the said Act by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kharagpur, who caused to have served notice upon the petitioners inviting them to appear in the hearing on 26th February, 1014 at 11.00 a.m. to be held at the office of the said Sub Divisional Officer, Kharagpur, in connection with the proceeding for cancellation of the patta. 2. The legality and/or validity of the said notice was challenged by the petitioners by filing an original application being O.A. No. 618 of 2014 (LRTT) before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench. 3. The Learned Tribunal by its order dated 25th February, 2014 disposed of the said tribunal application without interfering with the impugned notice by holding, interalia, that this is too early of a stage where any interference with the impugned notice is necessary as no decision has yet been taken by the concerned authority for cancellation of the patta and even if any decision is ultimately taken, the authority may think of providing alternative remedy to the present patta holders. The Learned Tribunal also held that the authority concerned would not blindly cancel the patta. 4. It is interesting to note here that though the Learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the impugned notice for the reason as mentioned above, still then the defects in the impugned notice were taken note of by the Learned Tribunal, which ultimately held that the proceeding cannot be quashed because of such defects in the notice which according to the Tribunal are curable. The petitioners were, thus, directed to ventilate their grievances before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer in course of hearing of the said proceeding. 5. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 25th February, 2014 is under challenge in this writ petition before us. 6. We are informed by Mr. The petitioners were, thus, directed to ventilate their grievances before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer in course of hearing of the said proceeding. 5. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Learned Tribunal on 25th February, 2014 is under challenge in this writ petition before us. 6. We are informed by Mr. Roy, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that the said proceeding is yet to be disposed of and the hearing of the said proceeding has not yet commenced. 7. Let us now consider the legality of the impugned order in the facts of the instant case in the light of the provision contained in section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 8. Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act clearly indicates that a proceeding for cancellation of the patta can be initiated by the Revenue Officer on his own motion or on an application made to him in that behalf. 9. Here of course, admittedly in the present case no proceeding has been initiated by the Revenue Officer, on his own motion. Such a proceeding was initiated on the recommendation made by the Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti. Section 49(2) of the said Act does not specify as to the person and/or organisation who are competent to make such application. 10. As such, such a proceeding, in our view, can be initiated on an application submitted by any person and/or organisation. Of course, we agree with the submission of Mr. Roy that Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti is not a statutory body and as such the patta cannot be cancelled on the basis of the decision taken by the Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti, but the same time, we cannot hold that no such proceeding can be initiated by the revenue officer at the instance of the Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samity. 11. We have already indicated above that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer has not decided to cancel the patta on the basis of the recommendation of the Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti. The concerned Sub Divisional officer who is the authority under the Act, simply initiated such a proceeding under section 49(2) of the said Act on the basis of the recommendation for cancellation of the patta submitted by Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti. The concerned Sub Divisional officer who is the authority under the Act, simply initiated such a proceeding under section 49(2) of the said Act on the basis of the recommendation for cancellation of the patta submitted by Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti. Section 49(2) of the said Act authorises the concerned Revenue Officer to take the ultimate decision for cancellation of patta in accordance with the provision contained therein. As such, it is needless to mention here that the ultimate decision for cancellation of patta is required to be taken by the Revenue Officer himself. 12. The proceeding is still under consideration before the Revenue Officer who is required to take an independent decision on the issue regarding cancellation of the petitioners' patta in accordance with the provision contained in section 49(2) of the said Act. Section 49(2) of the said Act specifically mentions the circumstances under which patta can be cancelled. These are the two following circumstances under which patta can be cancelled: i) when the Revenue Officer is satisfied that settlement of such land was made by mistake or obtained under any provision of this section by practice of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or otherwise, or ii) when the Revenue Officer is satisfied that a transfer of any such settled land has been made in contravention of sub section (1A) of section 49 of the said Act. 13. In our reading, section 49(2) does not give any authority to the Revenue Officer to cancel and/or to annul the patta on any other ground, save and except, the aforesaid two grounds. 14. As such, we direct the concerned Revenue Officer to examine the recommendation made by the Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti and if on examination of the said recommendation, it appears to the said Sub Divisional Officer that such recommendation was made on any of the two grounds as mentioned above, then only the Revenue Officer will examine the recommendation of the said Bon-O-Bhumi Sanskar Sthayee Samiti and will take a decision independently, and strictly in terms of the provision contained in section 49(2) of the said Act after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the patta holders and the complainant. 15. Before parting with, we intend to record here that the notice was a cryptic one as the reason, for which such a proceeding was initiated, was not mentioned in the said notice. 15. Before parting with, we intend to record here that the notice was a cryptic one as the reason, for which such a proceeding was initiated, was not mentioned in the said notice. Even the reason for which the Assistant Engineer of the High Way was shown as first party in the said notice has not been disclosed in the notice itself. Unless, the recommendation on the basis of which such proceeding was initiated is communicated to the petitioners, the petitioners, in our view, cannot effectively participate in the said proceeding. 16. As such, we direct the Revenue Officer to supply a copy of the recommendation on the basis of which the said proceeding was initiated to the petitioners at least a week before the date fixed for hearing of the said proceeding. 17. Needless to mention here that a reasoned order should be passed by the concerned authority in support of its ultimate conclusion to be drawn in the said proceeding and same should be circulated amongst the petitioners before executing the order, if any, ultimately passed for cancellation of the patta. 18. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the above direction without interfering with the ultimate conclusion of the Learned Tribunal as arrived at in the impugned order.