Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an adjudication made under section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in Case No. S.M.I. 15 of 1976. The petitioner contends that the petitioner filed a return in Form No. 7A for the purpose of exercising his option for retention of family ceiling land under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and according to the petitioner all the lands intended to be retained by the petitioner Can be lawfully retained by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that a part of the lands of the petitioner was situated in the irrigated area and the other part was not in the irrigated area and the prescribed authority has to make a determination as to what are the lands that fall within the irrigated area. But the Revenue Officer in disposing of the said case considered the said lands as irrigated lands. It is also contended by the petitioner that in computing the ceiling area, the Revenue Officer took into consideration some lands which were transferred by the petitioner prior to August 7, 1969. Some lands belonging to a Wakf Estate which is a public trust, was also taken into consideration by the Revenue Officer for the purpose of determining the family ceiling land. The petitioner has also contended that for good reasons the petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the date fixed for hearing but unjustly such prayer for adjournment was refused and the matter was disposed of ex parte and the Revenue Officer committed the aforesaid errors in deciding the family ceiling land of the petitioner. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State and a reply has also been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as made in the petition and also the affidavits and also hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties it appears that there has not been proper determination of the family ceiling land of the petitioner and there is justification for the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of adjudication. As it appears to me that the case would be reheard after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, I do not intend to express any view on the contentions made by the petitioner on the factual aspects of the matter but the petitioner is justified in contending as a legal proposition that if the prescribed authority has determined the nature of the lands, namely, as to whether the lands are irrigated or non-irrigated lands such determination has got to be accepted by the Revenue Officer and the petitioner is also justified in his contention that the lands which do not belong to the petitioner and/or the lands which were transferred before August 7, 1969 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determination of the family ceiling land. In this context, the Revenue Officer should also consider whether the Wakf in question was in the nature of public Wakf or not. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned adjudication which is made as Annexure "X" to the Supplementary Affidavit is quashed and the Revenue Officer is directed to decide afresh the said proceeding after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.;