Manash Nath Roy, J. - (1.) In this Rule, which was obtained with the corresponding interim order on 5th November, 1976, the petitioners have impeached the actions as purported to be taken under the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, through the notice in Annexure-A and as issued by the Bhagchas officer who is also the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Hasnabad.
(2.) The land involved in Chit proceedings would be 1.07 acre, more or less. The other particulars of the lands are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased the lands in question from Surbo-Shri Probodh Chandra Pal and Moni Mahan Pal, who are Proforma Respondent No. 4 and 5, on 2nd June, 1976. It has been alleged that one Thakur Charan Biswas, Respondent No. 2 in this Rule, without any authority or justification wanted to get hold of the lands in question, by claiming himself as a bargadar. The petitioners have claimed that the said Respondent No. 2, was not a Bargadar is respect of the lands in question and the claim as purported to be made by him, for recording his name as a Bargadar, through the application under section 18(2) of the West Bengal Lind Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was not only illegal, irregular and improper, but as mentioned above, the same was without any justification. Such application was filed by the said Respondent no. 2, before the Bhagchas Officer being the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Kasnabad at mentioned above, and the same was filed before the Bhrgchas Officer, it has barn claimed that the said officer had no authority either for entertaining the said application or for recording the name of Respondent No. 2, as Bargadar.
(3.) The application in question has been disclosed is Annexure B to the petition. From a reference to the said application it would appear that the applicant who is Reap rodent No. 2 in this Rule, has referred that up to 1332 B.S. the lands in question were cultivated by one Jogindra Nath Karmarkar as bargadar and he of his own having left the lands in question amicably, the said Respondent No. 2, was settled as a bargadar in respect of 2.15 acre of land and thereafter, when the owners being the petitioners in this Rule gave out their intention to dispose of the said 2.15 acre of land. The applicant, with great difficulties purchased 1.08 acre and promised to purchase the balance subsequently. It has also claimed that the owner petitioners having tried or given out disposes the applicant by force and they having given out that they would not allow him to cultivate the lands in question, it was prayed that an enquiry initiated by the authority concerned and after such enquiry and evidence, tho name of the applicant be recorded as bargadar in accordance with law or not to allow the petitioners to interfere with his right bargadar.;