KALYANI BERA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the suit by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration of her title to the suit land and other declarations and for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case was that during her minority her father took lease of the suit lands measuring 4. 59 acres on her behalf on payment of a selami of rs. 1076/- from Bejoy Kumar Bera and possession was delivered by an amalnama executed by him on 28th Falgun, 1348 B. S. corresponding to 4th march, 1943. Since then the plaintiff was in possession, subsequently, a jama of Rs. 19/1/3 pies was fixed for the suit lands. Another jote with a jama of Rs. 2/6/6 pies was started in respect of 52 decimals of land in plot No. 1194 of mouza Birulia. She paid rent of the two jamas till 1365 B. S. in the landlord's sherista. In the mean time, the plaintiff was married to the landlord Bejoy bera's son Bidyut Bera, defendant No. 2. Excepting plot No. 445 all other plots in dispute were recorded in her name in the current R. S. record of rights. The revenue Officer without any jurisdiction initiated a proceeding under Section 5a of the Estates Acquisition Act in respect of the suit lands. Transfer by lease to the plaintiff was found to be not bona fide and the entries in R. S. record-of-rights were cancelled and the suit plot was recorded in the name of plaintiffs husband Bidyut Bera. The suit lands were recorded as vested lands of government inasmuch as Bidyut Bera did not retain the same. The order of. the Revenue Officer is not only without jurisdiction but was illegal. As the order of the Revenue Officer clouded the plaintiffs title to suit-lands, the suit was instituted to clear that cloud after service of notice under Section 8 C. P. C.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1, State of West Bengal contested the suit. The material allegations in the plaint were denied. The defence case was that the Amalnama, receipt and dakhilas were all collusive and fictitious documents fabricated for the purpose of the suit. In the proceeding under Section 5a the alleged settlement was found to be mala fide and accordingly the R. S. record-or-rights were corrected, and the suit-lands were recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 who was a big raiyat. As he had not retained the suit land by submitting B form, these lands vested in the State of West Bengal. According to this defendant, the order passed by the Revenue Officer under Section 5a of the proceeding was with jurisdiction and legal and binding.