Anil Kumar Sinha, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal modifying the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Estates Acquisition, Hooghly, imposing upon the petitioner fine for removing sands from his land.
(2.) The petitioner claims to he the owner of certain plots of land on a portion of which, it is alleged, he was under dire necessity of digging a tank. In course of excavation some sands came out which were kept on his own land not for the purpose of either selling or making any profit. Even then a case was started against the petitioner under Sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956, which was introduced by amendment by West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1966. The Additional District Magistrate, Estate Acquisition, who heard the case, imposed a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, hut this fine of Rs. 1,500/- was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- on appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.
(3.) It appears that the Additional District Magistrate did not take any evidence of the parties, but merely on the report of the J.L.R.O. or other information received from sources which are also not disclosed, he was satisfied that the petitioner contravened the provisions of Sub-section (2-A) of Section 4 of the Act by permitting another person to quarry sand from his holding for commercial purpose. I fail to see how without any evidence the Additional District Magistrate, who is under an obligation to act judicially, could have proceeded to decide the matter only on a report of the J.L.R.O. even without examining him. I also do not find any other evidence or the particulars of information stated to have been received by the Magistrate in deciding the case. In fact Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, very fairly submits before me that excepting the report of the J.L.R.O. he also does not find any evidence adduced for establishing the offence of the petitioner. It is one of the fundamental concepts of well established judicial procedure that finding arrived at by authorities acting judicially or quasi-judicially, must be based on some evidence. Here in the instant case, the report of the J.L.R.O. without examining him was clearly inadmissible and cannot be considered as evidence on record.;