JITENDRA NATH RAKSHIT Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR RAKSHIT
LAWS(CAL)-1960-3-7
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 28,1960

JITENDRA NATH RAKSHIT Appellant
VERSUS
SUDHIR KUMAR RAKSHIT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE revisional applications are directed against an order of the District Judge, Hooghly, dismissing three appeals under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 44 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. One reason given by the learned District Judge for dismissing the appeals was that the specially empowered officer who dealt with the revision applications of the petitioner under sub-sec. (2a) of sec. 44 dismissed the revisional applications and did not revise the entry in the finally published settlement record prepared under sec. 39 of the Act and therefore an appeal did not lie. Sub-sec. (3) begins as follows:- "any person aggrieved by an order passed in revision under sub-sec. (2a) may appeal in. the prescribed manner. . . . . . . "
(2.) THE learned District Judge interpreted the words "an order passed in revision" as an order actually revising an entry in the finally published settlement khatian. He observed that unless that interpretation was adopted, the words "in revision" would be superfluous, and it would have been sufficient for the sub-section to say that any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-sec. (2a) may appeal in the prescribed manner. It is true that the words "in revision" might have been left out, but the point whether the words must necessarily be interpreted as meaning an order revising an entry in the finally published settlement khatian. Under sub-sec. (2a) of sec. 44, a party aggrieved by an entry in the finally published settlement khatian may file a revisional application before the specially empowered officer; and the officer may, after hearing both parties, reject the revisional application so that he does not revise the entry in the settlement record. But still the order passed by him can only be described as an order passed in revision under sub-section (2a) of sec. 44. In the circumstances, we hold that an appeal under sub-sec. (3) would lie even when the specially empowered officer rejects the revisional application and does not actually revise any entry in the finally published settlement record.
(3.) THE learned District Judge gave another ground for dismissing the appeals, namely, that title suits over the disputed property had been filed by both the parties and that the parties should await the decision in those title suits. In fact, the specially empowered officer refused to revise the entry in the finally published settlement record principally on that ground, namely, that title suits over the disputed property had been filed by both the parties and chat the parties should await the decision in. those title suits. In fact, the specially empowered officer refused to revise the entry in the finally published settlement record principally on that ground, namely, that both parties had filed title suits over the disputed property and intricate questions of title were involved which could best be decided by the civil court. The learned District Judge observed that he could not find fault with the specially empowered officer for having left the C. S. records undisturbed in the circumstances. We think that in view of the pendency of the title suits filed by both the parties in respect of the disputed property, the question of title and possession should be left to be finally decided in the suits. It was quite proper on the part of the said specially empowered officer and the learned District Judge not to try and decide the question in the summary proceeding under sec. 44 of the Estates Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the revisional applications must fail and the Rules are discharged. In the circumstances no order is made as to costs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.