Ganendra Narayan Ray, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an adjudication made under lection 44 (2a), suo motu of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act being Case No. 916 and also an adjudication made in a Big Raiyat proceeding being Case No. 353 of 1979.
(2.) It appears that the said section 44(2a) suo motu proceeding was initiated on 20th August, 1979 and it was directed that notices of the said proceeding should be issued upon the recorded tenants and also the original landlord and the hearing was fixed on 30th August, 1979 On 30th August, 1979 the case was adjourned for hearing on 8th September, 1971 It, however, appears that on 31st August, 1979, the said Big Raiyat proceeding under section 6(1) of the Act was started although up to the point of time there was no occasion to come to any finding in the said - proceeding under section 44(2a). It appears that there after both the proceedings continued simultaneously and the 44 (2a) proceeding was concluded on 8ih September 1979 and the Big Raiyat proceeding was concluded on 11th September, 1979. It was held in the 44 (2a) proceeding that the names of the recorded tenants should be deleted and the original landlord's name should be inserted on the finding that the original landlord was in actual physical possession. For coming to the said finding it transpires that the Revenue Officer relied on the report of the Halka Officer. But the said report was obtained ex-parte and no copy was made available to the present petitioner. It is, therefore, quite clear and apparent that the basic principle of natural justice was not followed and both this proceedings, viz., 44 (2a) proceeding and the Big Raiyat proceeding were disposed of primarily on the basis of the report made by the Halla Officer without any notice to the petitioner and without giving the petitioner any opportunity to controvert the same. It is also very unfortunates that the said Big Raiyat proceeding was started almost simultaneous with 44 (2a) proceeding. In my view, the question of the Big Raiyat proceeding can only arise if the 44 (2a) proceedings is finally concluded and it is held that the original landlord should be recorded in the final published revisional record of rights and for such recording his land exceed the ceiling. But before such adjudication is made in the 44 (2a) proceeding, there cannot be any occasion to think that the said landlord had really retained lands beyond the ceiling and, as such, the Big Raiyat proceeding should be initiated against the same. In my view, Mr. Pal the teamed Advocate for the petitioner is quite justified in his contention that in the instant case the said proceeding was initiated malafide and with the sole intention to conclude the said proceeding against the petitioner and to deprive the petitioner to retain the lands permissible in law.
(3.) Accordingly, the adjudications made in both the said proceeding are quashed. The Revenue Officer will, however, have the liberty to start a fresh proceeding under Section 44 (2a) in accordance with law if on a proper consideration of the materials on record he is prima facto of the view that a case for starting a suo motu proceeding has been made out.;