Decided on June 10,1983



- (1.) THE petitioners claim to be owners of plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. They have challenged in this writ application recording of the names of the respondent no. 5 as a bargadar in respect of the petitioner's share 'in plot nos. 526 and 527 R. S. Khatian no. 46 mouza Lalkundu. In the above view it is not necessary for me to record any finding about the ownership and the mode of cultivation of the plots other than plot nos. 528 and 527 mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The question or the question regarding recording of names of other - persons are accordingly left open. I also make it clear that in case the petitioners are owners only of part and not in entirety of plot nos. 526 and 527 this order will not affect the recording of the name of respondent no. 5 as bargadar, if any, made in respect of the shares of other person having remaining shares, if any, in the ' said two plots.
(2.) AT the hearing of this application it has been made clear that the instant recording was made by the Revenue Officer concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule A to the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. Thus, in the instant case the said entries have been made in course of the revision of the record of rights under chapter VII of the West Bengal Land reforms Act. I do not propose to decide myself Whether in fact in respect of the aforesaid two plots relationship of owner and the bargadar subsists between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent no. 5 on the other. The said question may be decided at the first instance by the Revenue Officer and thereafter by appropriate authority in appropriate manner.
(3.) UPON a perusal of the records I find that in the instant case the notice of the enquiry in question was not given in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of the second proviso to Rule 1 sch A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The records indicate that instead of the names of the petitioners the name of their father who was allegedly recorded raiyat was mentioned in the notice published by the Revenue officer. The Revenue Officer is required to hold an enquiry in terms of clause (ii)of second proviso to rule 1 of Schedule A by giving the persons claiming as bargadars and the owners of the lands concerned opportunity of being heard. Such an enquiry is quasi judicial in nature. Therefore, the Revenue Officer is bound to conform to the rules of natural justice.;

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