PANCHANAN SINGH Vs. REVENUE OFFICER ETC. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has claimed agriculture as his only source of livelihood and he has also stated that he maintain a big family, out of the usufructs of the lands as involved in this petition, which lands would hereinafter be referred to as the said lands. The area of the said lands and as in Khas possession of the petitioner has been stated to be 13.41 acres of agricultural land within the non-irrigated area which he has claimed to have received by way of inheritance and also by purchase, sometime in the year 1953. The petitioner has also stated that apart from the said lands his wife has in her Khas possession, lands measuring 7.26 acres of agricultural land within non irrigated area.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioner's family consists of himself, his wife, one adult married son, one minor son and one minor daughter. Thus, according to him, he had five members in the family. It has also been stated by the petitioner, that apart from those members as mentioned above, he has two adult unmarried daughters viz Renuka Singh and Minati Singh, who according to him, were living separately since 1961 and 1967 respectively. It has been stated that those two daughters, were living in separate mess and at different addresses and were employed as teachers in two different schools. It has also been stated by the petitioner that those two daughters out of their savings purchased some lands in their names and they were enjoying and possessing those lands on their own right. These apart, the petitioner has stated that those two daughters have separate ration cards and the lands as purchased by them. have been recorded in their names in the settlement record of rights. As such, the petitioner has claimed that the lands of those two daughters could never be taken into account as the lands of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has also stated that the two sons, viz. Sailendra Kumar Singh and Shib Shankar Singh, have no agricultural lands in their names, but they only hold and possess homestead lands, having structures, in the town of Krishnagar. As such, according to the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the petitioner has stated that the adult married son having no agricultural land in his name, should not be included as a member of his family and the two adult daughters viz unmarried daughters as mentioned above and who have severed all connections with him and acquired lands in their names, out of their own earnings, should not also be included in his family and in. any event, the lands standing in the name of those unmarried daughters, could not be included in the petitioner's account of lands, for the purpose of determining the ceiling under the said Act. It has also been stated by the petitioner that if the number of his family members, is taken to be five and the total area of lands standing in his name and in the name of his wife, which would be 20.67 acres, is taken to be the total area of land of the petitioner, then only a very small area of land could be vested to the State under the provisions of the said Act. It would appear that the petitioner was served with a notice under sections 14T and S read with Sec. 57 of the said Act, directing him to appear on 6th Oct. 1977, for the purpose of determination of his ceiling area of lands and on that date, he duly appeared and submitted a list of lands belonging to him and his wife. It has been stated that since the petitioner did not include the lends standing In the name of his two unmarried adult daughters, he was directed to come with the list of their lands on 7th Oct. 1977. The petitioner has stated that accordingly, he submitted the concerned list of lands standing In the name of two daughters as mentioned above and It has been claimed that It was stated both orally and in writing that those two daughters not being members at the petitioner's family, their lands could not be considered as that of petitioner's and those two daughters could not in any event, be considered as member of his family. It was also the case of the petitioner that on 8th Oct. 1977, he appeared before the Revenue Officer concerned and put forward his objections as mentioned above, and also produced his family ration cards and certificate issued by the Vice Chairman of the Krishnagar Municipality, for the purpose of establishing that the daughters as mentioned above, were not members of his family. The Revenue Officer concerned, of course, overruled the objection taken by the petitioner, and passed an order of vesting after allowing the petitioner to retain 1003 acres of agricultural lands only and such order was passed on the basis that the family of the petitioner, should be deemed to consist of six members, including the said two adult unmarried daughters and excluding the eldest son of the petitioner, who holds only homestead lands within Krishnagar town, it has been stated by the petitioner that no final order of vesting was passed on the said date as the petitioner was directed to submit a statement of lands of his choice within the ceiling limit