AMULYA KUMAR MAITY Vs. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER AND REVENUE OFFICER TAKI DIST 24-PARGANAS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
AMULYA KUMAR MAITY
ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER AND REVENUE OFFICER TAKI DIST 24-PARGANAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) ON the application of the petitioners a Rule was issued on 6. 10. 69 under article 227 of the Constitution calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of dated 14. 8. 69 passed in case No. 590 U/s. 5a of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition art. 1953 should not be quashed or set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on 3. 6. 67 the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 purchased portions of plot No. 701 appertaining to R. S. Khatian No. 458 and the petitioners Nos. 4, 5 and 6 purchased portions of lands recorded in khatian No. 435 between 20. 6. 62 and 28. 6. 62 and that they had been in possession of the same since their purchase from Prohlad Chandra Das, opposite party No. 3, who took settlement from sm. Maheswari Dasi, opposiite party No. 4. on 22. 12. 53. It is alleged that on 5. 8. 69 a proceeding under Section 5a of the Estates acquisition Act was started in respect o:f the lands of revision khatian No. 435 and 458 and also in respect of other lands and the Assistant Settlement officer after service of notice on prohlad Chandra Das only that the transfer of opposite party No. 4 in favour of opposite party No. 3 was not bonafide and the transfer in favour of prohlad Chandra Das stands cancelled from the date it was made or purported to have been made.
(3.) THE Rule is not opposed though notice was served on all the opposite parties and none turns up on behalf of the opposite parties at the time of hearing. Mr. Bagchi, appearing for the petitioners has kindly taken me through the record and made submissions. It appears from the copy of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the notice of the proceeding under Sectio 5a of the Estates Acquisition Act was served only on opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. No notice was served on the petitioners. But the petitioners purchased the properties from the recorded owner opposite party No. 3 two years or more before the date of the proceedings. Under Section 5a (5) of the estates Acquisition Act no order shall be passed on an enquiry held under that Section except after giving the transferor and the transferee an opportunity of being heard. Under Sub-Section 5a (7) (iv) of the Estates Acquisition act transferor and transferee include the successor in interest of the transferor or the transferee. In the instant case the original transferor opposite party No. 3 had already transferred his entire interest in the two khatians mentioned above to the petitioners. But the petitioners were not made parties and were not served with notices in terms of sub-section 5a (5) (1) of the estates Acquisition Act read with subsection 5a (7) (4) of the Act. This service of notice is mandatory and the petitioners were greatly prejudiced as they were not given an opportunity to be heard and to explain that the transfer in their favour cannot in any case be questioned even if opposite party no. 3 was a benamder of opposite party no. 4. The petitioners, however, challenged the finding that the transaction of transfer in favour of opposite party no. 3 was not bonafide. At any rate the proceeding under Section 5a of the estates Acquisition Act cannot be allowed without service of notice on the petitioners who are transferees from the original transferor.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.