CHITTARANJAN DHARA Vs. B D O UDAYNARAYANPORE HOWRAH
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B D O UDAYNARAYANPORE HOWRAH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IN this proceeding, the writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 17. 2. 1979 passed by Sri M. C. Sen Gupta, Deputy Magistrate and Deputy collector and Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated land Act, 1973 at Uluberia in the district of Howrah in LR. Appeal Case No. 57 or' 1977-78 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 26. 11. 1977 passed by the Block Development Officer (Special Officer) Udayanarayanpore, Howrah in case no. 102 of 1976.
(2.) THE respondent no. 3 sold dag no 1464 appertaining to khatian no. 376 of Mouza kurichi being a plot of agricultural land measuring about. 17 acre to the petitioner on 24. 3. 1970 by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1000/ -. In the said document reason for sale was mentioned as the necessity for money on account of the business of the vendor. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 applied before the Special Officer for restoration of the said land under section 4 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) and in the said application he mentioned that the reason for sale was the need of money for maintenance of family and repayment of debt. He also stated in his application that there was an oral agreement between the parties for reconveyance of the disputed land on payment of the consideration money within Chaitra 1383 B. S.
(3.) THE Special Officer after taking evidence from the parties allowed the application of the respondent no. 3 on the ground that he sold the Land being in distress. The Special Officer further found that there was reliable evidence of oral agreement between the parties for reconveyance of the disputed land and that even assuming that there was no such agreement for reconveyance, the petitioner satisfied the condition that being in distress he was forced to sell the disputed land to the present petitioner. On such findings, the Special Officer allowed the application of the respondent no. 3. Against the said order of the Special Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in his impugned order has found that as the respondent no. 3's family was to be maintained by very small earning from his trade in rice on a very small scale and that was the main source of income of his family, he disposed of the disputed land to keep the business running and such disposal was a distress sale for maintenance of the family. In that view, the appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 17. 2. 1979;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.